The judicial review hearing of Law No. 16 of 2004 on the Attorney General’s Office, Tuesday (11/30/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Panji.

---

Tuesday, November 30, 2021 | 16:18 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—A number of law activists challenge Article 1 point 1, Article (2) paragraph (1), Article 17, Article 19 paragraph (2), and Article 20 of Law No. 16 of 2004 on the Attorney General’s Office. The preliminary hearing for case No. 61/PUU-XIX/2021 on Tuesday, November 30, 2021 was presided over by Constitutional Justices Suhartoyo (chair), Wahiduddin Adams, and Saldi Isra.

The Petitioners’ representative Welly Anggara said 13 activists who filed the material judicial review petition are of various professions, such as prosecution analysts, lecturers, advocates, legal consultants, and university students. They question the normative position of the Attorney General’s Office in Indonesia’s administration. They simply wish for it to have strong structural independence to avoid external intervention.

The Petitioners argue that the label of the Attorney General’s Office as a ‘government institution’ in Article 2 paragraph (1) and Article 19 paragraph (2) of the a quo law on the mechanism for appointing the attorney general without a fit and proper test by the House of Representatives (DPR) potentially causes disruption to the structural independence of the Attorney General’s Office in its main function related to judicial power or the law enforcement, i.e. prosecution. Of course, this is contrary to the principle of the independence of the judicial power as regulated in Article 24 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, where the judicial power is an independent power to administer justice to uphold law and justice.

The Petitioners believe the provision on the appointment and dismissal of the attorney general in Article 19 paragraph (2) of the Attorney General’s Office Law may allow the president as a political organ, either for personal interest or for certain groups, to intervene in the implementation of the Attorney General’s Office’s law enforcement function because, based on the provision, a person can be appointed and dismissed as attorney general unilaterally by the president without prior approval from the House.

“Therefore, the Attorney General’s Office as one of the institutions formed to carry out the functions of judicial power within the conceptual framework of law enforcement, of course, ideally it must be independent, both personally and structurally. However, the mention of the Attorney General’s Office as a government institution in Article 2 paragraph (1) of the Attorney General’s Office Law has created ambiguity,” Welly said at the hearing that the litigants attended virtually from their respective residences.

Justices’ Advice

In response, Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams gave recommendations for the betterment of the petition. He said the Court’s authority to rule the case must be included. He also requested that the Petitioners affirm the legal standing of each of them and stressed the criteria for the constitutional impairment that they experience.

“A cluster can be made so that there not need be explanation one by one. For example, who the individuals are, what the criteria are. Therefore, the Petitioners and the constitutional rights violated by the enactment of the norm become clear,” he said.

Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra highlighted the need to categorize the 13 petitioners to explain their constitutional impairment. For example, if petitions to the Attorney General are only granted when the petitioners are those who have undergone education at the Attorney General’s Office, those who have not would be disadvantaged as they would not be allowed to be prosecutors. Therefore, the Petitioners must reconsider the petition because they have different occupations with different career potentials in prosecution.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo said the Petitioners should revise the correlation between their constitutional rights and the enactment of the law. “Provide the Court with arguments on the correlation between the constitutional rights [and the law] so that the disadvantages of the Petitioners’ various profession due to the enactment of the norm becomes clear,” he said.

Writer    : Sri Pujianti
Editor   : Nur R.
PR        : Fitri Yuliana
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 12/8/2021 12:06 WIB

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

---