Chief Justice Anwar Usman reading out an interlocutory decision at the judicial review hearing of Law No. 11 of 2021 on Public Prosecution, Tuesday (10/11/2022). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

Tuesday, October 11, 2022 | 16:16 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The hearing for Law No. 11 of 2021 on the Amendment to Law No. 16 of 2004 on Prosecution continued in the Constitutional Court (MK). The petition was filed by six public prosecutors—Irnensif, Zulhadi Savitri Noor, Wilmar Ambarita, Renny Ariyanny, Indrayati Siagian, and Fahriani Suyuthi (Petitioners I-VI).

After the constitutional justices held a plenary hearing on Tuesday, October 11, 2022 to hear the Attorney General as the Relevant Party and experts for the Petitioners, they went on to read out an interlocutory decision to grant the Petitioners’ provisional petition.

“[The Court] adjudicated, before handing down the final decision: 1. Grants the Petitioners’ provisional petition; 2. Declares the enactment of Article 40A of Law No. 11 of 2021 on the Amendment to Law No. 16 of 2004 on Prosecution (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia of 2004 Number 67, Supplement to the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 4401) postponed since this decision is pronounced,” said Chief Justice Anwar Usman reading out the Interlocutory Decision No. 70-PS/PUU-XX/2022.

In its legal considerations read out by Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo, the Court asserted that Article 40A of the Prosecution Law had been in force throughout 2022 and Petitioners I-III, who were 60, had been discharged following the provision. Based on the provision, Petitioners IV and V would turn 60 and soon be discharged, while Petitioner VI still has a lot of time until she turns 60.

This fact, the Court asserted, would potentially violate the guarantee of equality before the law and fair legal certainty. In addition, the Petitioners’ constitutional rights could potentially not be rehabilitated. An honorable discharge has a lot of consequences for a civil servant (PNS) and logically brings them losses.

“If the Petitioners’ petition is granted and the a quo norm is declared unconstitutional, it will be hard to rehabilitate their lost constitutional rights. Therefore, the Court believes an interlocutory decision is needed to provide legal protection to the Petitioners and prevent violation of human rights when the norm is in force while the examination of the subject matter is still ongoing, while the Petitioners’ constitutional rights that were harmed will be difficult to rehabilitate with the final decision,” Justice Suhartoyo said.

The decision was seen as a move to prevent even more prosecutors being impacted by the provision before its constitutionality is ruled by the Court. As such, the Court believes the provisional petition was legally grounded.

Also read: 

Prosecutors Challenge Retirement Age Limit

Public Prosecutors Revise Petition on Retirement Age 

Change of Retirement Age of Public Prosecutors Based on Performance Assessment 

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.  

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

Translation uploaded on 10/19/2022 09:00 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.

---