Petitioner of case No. 61/PUU-XIX/2021 on Law No. 16 of 2004 on the Attorney General’s Office affirming initial argument made at preliminary hearing at the petition revision hearing, Tuesday (12/14/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Ilham W.M.

---

Tuesday, December 14, 2021 | 13:59 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) held another judicial review hearing of 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 on Tuesday, December 14, 2021. The hearing for case No. 61/PUU-XIX/2021 was presided over by Constitutional Justices Suhartoyo (chair), Wahiduddin Adams, and Saldi Isra in the panel courtroom.

The Petitioners are 13 activists of various professions, such as prosecution analysts, lecturers, advocates, legal consultants, and university students. Their representative, Rizky Evrianto, said they would not revise the petition and would like to persist with the petition as conveyed at the preliminary hearing.

“The Petitioners request that the Court accept and grant the petition in its entirety… declare 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 unconstitutional…,” he said virtually.

Justice Suhartoyo requested that they await the information regarding the case after the constitutional justices’ deliberation meeting (RPH), which will be conveyed by the Registrar’s Office.

Also read: Activists Question Prosecution’s Independence

At the preliminary hearing, the Petitioners questioned 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.

In the petitum, they request that the Court declare 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 unconstitutional and not legally binding.

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

Translation uploaded on 12/15/2021 08:45 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.

---