The Constitutional Court ruling that the judicial review petition of the Attorney General’s Office was inadmissible, Wednesday (4/20/2022). Photo by Humas MK/BPE.

---

Wednesday, April 20, 2022 | 15:39 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) ruled 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 inadmissible. “[The Court] adjudicated, declares the Petitioners’ petition inadmissible,” said plenary chair Chief Justice Anwar Usman at the ruling hearing for case No. 27/PUU-XX/2022 on Wednesday afternoon, April 20, 2022.

The Court in its considerations stated that the Petitioners had revised their petition, which was received by the Registrar’s Office on March 30. They then presented the points of revision at a hearing on April 7. After the Court closely observe the revisions, the Court found that in the posita, the Petitioners explained the reasons why Article 12 letter c and Article 40A of the Attorney General’s Office Law must be declared unconstitutional and requested that the Court provide an interpretation of the articles.

In addition, although the justice panel had given the Petitioners advice for the petitum at the preliminary hearing, they maintained their position. They had confirmed this at the petition revision hearing, when through their counsel they affirmed that the petitum they wished for was one in the revised petition read out at the second hearing.

Also read: Five Prosecutors Challenge Provision on Retirement Age 

The Court was of the opinion that the revised petitum number 2, 3, 4, and 5 are cumulative, thus causing confusion and ambiguity as to what the Petitioners were actually asking for. On the one hand, they requested that the Court declare Article 12 letter c and Article 40A of the Attorney General’s Office Law unconstitutional. On the other hand, they requested that the Court declare those articles conditionally unconstitutional.

Based on these legal facts, it was impossible for the Court to grant two conflicting petitum, unless the Petitioners had requested an alternative, quod non. Therefore, if the petitum as requested by the Petitioners had been granted, within the limits of logical reasoning, it would lead to confusion and legal uncertainty. Based on all of the above legal considerations, the petition created ambiguity, thus it was difficult for the Court to understand the intention of the a quo petition. The petition, thus, was declared obscure. 

Also read: Petitioners of Attorney General’s Office Law Revise Posita 

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.”

One of the Petitioners’ legal counsel, Abdul Rohman, said they 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. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTbCPEdQlGU

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

Translation uploaded on 4/20/2022 18:11 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.

---