---

Monday, May 24, 2021 | 14:40 WIB

The Constitutional Court’s virtual panel judicial review hearing on the revision of petition against Ombudsman Law, Monday (24/5/2021) from one of its courtrooms. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The second hearing of the judicial review of Article 36 paragraph (1) letter b of Law No. 37 of 2008 on Ombudsman was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Monday, May 24, 2021 in the panel courtroom. The case No. 7/PUU-XIX/2021 was filed by Depok City civil servant (PNS) Hendry Agus Sutrisno. Today he conveyed the revisions to the petition.

Virtually, he stated that he had revised the touchstones in this material judicial review case, elaborated on his legal standing more, and elaborated on the posita and petitum. “The petitum is now Article 36 paragraph (1) letter b of the Ombudsman Law, which reads, ‘The Ombudsman shall reject the Grievance as specified under Article 35 point a in the event: … b. The substance of Grievance is currently under and has become the object of judicial proceedings, except such Grievance is related to maladministration in the process of court examination and/or to maladministration in the investigation and/or research,’” he said before Constitutional Justices Suhartoyo (panel chair), Enny Nurbaningsih, and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh.

Also read: Depok PNS Challenges Provision on Grievance in Ombudsman Law

At the preliminary hearing, the Petitioner claimed the norm in contention violated Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28G paragraph (1), and Article 28I paragraphs (2) and (4) of the 1945 Constitution. He believes the Ombudsman cannot receive any grievance from the people that is and has become the object of judicial proceedings, including pretrial, except if it is related to maladministration in judicial examination, including pretrial. Meanwhile, pretrial institutions can only adjudicate and rule the formal aspect of cases.

Meanwhile, under Article 2 paragraphs (2) and (4) of the Supreme Court Regulation No. 4 of 2016 on Prohibition against Reviewing Pretrial Decisions, investigators have the full authority concerning the material aspect of the implementation of criminal provisions on a criminal case. consequently, no other institutions can correct the implementation of a criminal provision on a criminal case that they’re examining. The Petitioner believes this is highly subject to violations and abuse of authority, which he had reported to investigators of the Depok City precinct police (Polres).

He revealed that he reported a case to the Profession and Internal Security Division (Propam) of the Depok City precinct police (Polres), who only examined his report on violation of code of ethics, and disregarded that on the change of articles. He suspected that there had been maladministration in the National Police, where there had been violation of the law and that the police investigators had abused their full authority to determine the felony to be charged to a suspect. He then filed a grievance to Ombudsman on October 7, 2020, which Ombudsman received the next day. However, Ombudsman couldn’t examine it, citing that the Petitioner’s report had been examined by a pretrial institution as referred to in the Ombudsman letter No. B/1075/PV.02.03/9016.2020/XI/2020 dated November 9, 2020.

Writer: Sri Pujianti
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR: Tiara Agustina
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 5/24/2021 19:19 WIB

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian version, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---