Counsel Reza Setiawan reading out the petition revisions at the material judicial review of Law No. 16 of 2004 on the Prosecution Office, Wednesday (4/12/2023). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held the judicial review hearing of three laws: Article 30 paragraph (1) letter d of Law No. 16 of 2004 on the Prosecution Office; Article 39 of Law No. 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of the Criminal Acts of Corruption; as well as Article 44 paragraphs (4) and (5) on the phrase “or the Prosecution Office,” Article 50 paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) on the phrase “or the Prosecution Office,” and Article 50 paragraph (4) on the phrase “and/or the Prosecution Office” of Law No. 30 of 2002 on the Corruption Eradication Commission.

The Petitioner’s counsel Reza Setiawan conveyed the petition revisions, which include the addition of prologue of the three laws, the legislation relating to the Court’s authority, the Petitioner’s legal standing, as well as the background of the petition. “The basis for the review of these three laws is the guarantee of fair equality. In carrying out its duties, the Prosecution Office must be able to realize certainty and legal order as well as instilling humanity values of law within society,” he said before Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat, Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh, and Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah.

The Petitioner had also elaborated the KPK’s authority so that there is not overlap with relevant institution in settling similar criminal offenses. He had also included data on several investigation on criminal acts of corruption.

Also read: Advocate Challenges Prosecution’s Investigative Authority

The petition No. 28/PUU-XXI/2023 was filed by M. Jasin Jamaluddin, an advocate. At the preliminary hearing on Wednesday, March 29, 2023, he asserted that the a quo articles were in violation of Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution and that the granting of investigative authority on certain offenses to the Prosecution has led it to become a superpower. In addition to prosecution, it can also investigate.

The authority, which was granted by Article 30 paragraph (1) letter d of the Prosecution Law, has enabled the Prosecution to conduct investigation arbitrarily. In addition, since pre-prosecution over investigations carried out by prosecutors is also carried out by prosecutors, so there is no control over investigations carried out by prosecutors by other institutions. In the absence of such control, prosecutors often ignore requests for the rights of suspects, such as requests for the examination of witnesses/experts for suspects to shed light on a case.

On February 21, 2023, a prosecutor declared the Petitioner’s client’s dossier incomplete and that a follow-up investigation would be carried out. However, despite the investigating prosecutor not having carried out that investigation, on February 23, the pre-prosecution prosecutor declared the dossier complete and transferred it to the public prosecutor. During the investigation, the Petitioner’s client asked that his witnesses and experts be examined to shed light on the case. however, the investigator and pre-prosecution prosecutor ignored the request.

Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare all the petitioned articles in violation of Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. 

Author       : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Raisa Ayudhita
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

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.

---