The judicial review of Law No. 11 of 2011 on the Attorney General’s Office for case No. 27/PUU-XX/2022, Thursday (3/17/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Bayu.

---

Thursday, March 17, 2022 | 14:58 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The judicial review hearing of Law No. 11 of 2021 on the Amendment to Law No. 16 of 2004 on the Attorney General’s Office took place at the Constitutional Court (MK) on Thursday, March 17, 2022. The case No. 27/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by five prosecutors—Fentje Eyfert Loway, T. R. Silalahi, Renny Ariyanny, Martini, and Fahriani Suyuti. They challenge Article 12 letter c of the Attorney General’s Office Law, which reads, “The prosecutor shall be honorably discharged from his/her position because he/she: … c. has reached the age of 60 (sixty) years.”

Legal counsel Abdul Rohman said the five prosecutors believed their constitutional rights had been harmed due to the ambiguity of Article 12 letter c of the Attorney General’s Office Law on the retirement age of prosecutors, while the Elucidation only reads “Sufficiently clear.”

He added that, based on the a quo law, as part of the judiciary, the prosecution should not be discriminated against in their functional position and their retirement age. The Petitioners are nearing 59 years of age. When they turn 60 they will be forced to resign due to the a quo provision.

The Petitioners argued that the revised Attorney General’s Office Law potentially impairs the constitutional rights of prosecutors and are discriminatory when, in fact, all citizens have equal position before the law and in government and must uphold the law and government without exception and are entitled to fair legal recognition, certainty, protection, and assurance and equal treatment before the law. therefore, the Petitioners believe the Court should interpret Article 12 letter c of the Attorney General’s Office Law.

In the Judicial Law, the retirement age in the general court, religious court, and state administration court is regulated explicitly. This is different from that in the Attorney General’s Office. Such ambiguity, the Petitioners believe, would affect the Petitioners’ career and that of prosecutors throughout the country.

Justices’ Advice

Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih observed that the petition was filed by individuals, not institution. She advised the Petitioners to clarify their argument on their constitutional impairment. “What must be clarified here is the Petitioners’ constitutional impairment. It needs more elaboration,” he said.

She noted that the format of the petition was good and it was complete. However, she recommended that the introduction be removed. “Following the Constitutional Court Regulation No. 2 of 2021, there is usually no introduction. Please move it to a better part,” she added.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul stressed that the petition should follow the format stated in the latest regulation: Constitutional Court Regulation No. 2 of 2021.

“Saya tegaskan, PMK No. 2 Tahun 2021 itulah yang harus dipedomani untuk membuat sistematika permohonan. Sistematika permohonan dimulai dengan identitas Pemohon atau kuasa Pemohon, kemudian Keweangan Mahkamah, kedudukan hukum, posita, terakhir adalah petitum. Itulah sistematika yang baku, tidak perlu ada pendahuluan dalam permohonan,” urai Manahan.

Writer        : Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Muhammad Halim
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 3/18/2022 09:46 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.

---