The Petitioners represented by legal counsel Viktor Santoso Tandiasa at the material judicial review of Law No. 11 of 2021 on Public Prosecution, Tuesday (8/2/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Ilham W. M.

---

Tuesday, August 2, 2022 | 16:37 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The material judicial review of Law No. 11 of 2021 on the Amendment to Law No. 16 of 2004 on Prosecution was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) once again on Tuesday, August 2, 2022 virtually. This second hearing for case No. 70/PUU-XX/2022 had been scheduled to examine the revisions to the petition.

The Petitioners, represented by legal counsel Viktor Santoso Tandiasa, added another petitioner, rounding them up to six.

“Ms. Fahrani Suyuthi is the sixth Petitioner,” he said to the justice panel chaired by Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo.

He added that the articles to review was reduced to only one: Article 40A of the Prosecution Law as a transitional provision. The format of the petition was revised and the touchstones emphasized. The Petitioners also elaborated on ne bis in idem. No revision was made to the background for the revision. The background of the petition was also elaborated more.

Also read: Prosecutors Challenge Retirement Age Limit

The petition No. 70/PUU-XX/2022 on the material judicial review of the Prosecution Law was filed by six public prosecutors—Irnensif, Zulhadi Savitri Noor, Wilmar Ambarita, Renny Ariyanny, Indrayati Siagian, and Fahriani Suyuthi (Petitioners I-VI). They challenge Article 40A of the Prosecution Law.

Article 40A of the Prosecution Law reads, “At the time this Law comes into force, the dismissal of Prosecutors aged 60 (sixty) years or more shall continue to comply with the provisions on the retirement age limit as stipulated in Law Number 16 of 2004 concerning Public Prosecution of the Republic of Indonesia (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia of 2004 Number 67, Supplement to the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 4401).”

At the preliminary hearing on Tuesday, July 19, legal counsel Viktor Santoso Tandiasa said the Prosecution Law had harmed the Petitioners. Petitioners I, II, and III turned 60 on March 1, 2022; March 3, 2022; and April 16, 2022, respectively. They were impacted by the norms when entering retirement.

“In addition, the enactment of the a quo norms had caused restrictions on the careers and promotions of Petitioners I, II, and III,” he said.

Petitioners IV and V, who will turn 60 on November 24 and October 24 respectively, also experienced this. Based on those provisions, Viktor added, they would be forced to resign, hence restricting their careers and promotions.

“Due to those provisions, the Petitioners do not receive guarantee and fair legal protection as well as equality before the law, as guaranteed in Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. In addition, as citizens they did not receive equal opportunities as regulated in Article 28D paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution,” he emphasized.

Also read:

Five Prosecutors Challenge Provision on Retirement Age

Petitioners of Attorney General’s Office Law Revise Posita

Petitum Contradictory, Petition on Attorney General’s Office Law Dismissed 

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

Translation uploaded on 8/3/2022 08:18 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.

---