Chief Justice Anwar Usman reading out the decree on the judicial review of the Law the Attorney General’s Office at a ruling hearing on Thursday (3/10/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ilham W. M.

---

Thursday, March 10, 2022 | 15:42 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) ruled over the withdrawal of the judicial review petition of Law No. 11 of 2011 on the Attorney General’s Office filed by Ricki Martin Sidauruk. The ruling hearing for case No. 9/PUU-XIX/2021 took place virtually on Thursday, March 10, 2022.

Chief Justice Anwar Usman revealed that the Court had held a preliminary hearing on the case and then a petition revision hearing on February 23. At the public hearing, the Petitioner did not convey any revision to the petition but, instead, expressed his wish to withdraw it.

The constitutional justices, he said, had convened at a justice deliberation meeting (RPH) and come to the conclusion that the Petitioner’s request to withdraw the petition was warranted and had been in line with Article 35 paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Constitutional Court Law.

“[The Court] grants the Petitioner’s request to withdraw the petition; declares the petition No. 9/PUU-XIX/2021 on the judicial review petition of Law No. 11 of 2011 on the Amendment to Law No. 16 of 2004 on the Attorney General’s Office against the 1945 Constitution withdrawn; declares the Petitioner unable to re-file the a quo petition; orders the Constitutional Court’s chief registrar to record the withdrawal of petition No. 9/PUU-XIX/2021 on the electronic constitutional case registration book (e-BRPK) and to return copies of the petition to the Petitioner,” Justice Anwar declared.

Also read:

Prosecutor’s Authority to File Judicial Review Petition Challenged

Petitioner of Attorney General’s Office Law Withdraws Petition 

The material judicial review petition was filed by Ricki Martin Sidauruk. He argued that not only did the provision on the Attorney General’s Office’s authority to file a judicial review (PK) petition, stipulated in Article 30C letter h of the a quo law, go against his constitutional right to just enforcement of the law, but it also went against the principle of legal certainty in the law-based state of the Republic of Indonesia.

The Petitioner argued that the provision had disregarded the Constitutional Court Decision No. 16/PUU-VI/2008, which is generally binding. Thus, in the petitum, he requested that the Court declare Article 30C letter h of the Attorney General’s Office Law unconstitutional and not legally binding. 

Writer        : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Raisa Ayudhita
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 3/10/2022 20:22 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.

---