The Petitioner’s legal counsels, Welly Anggara and Alfin Julian Nanda, attending the material judicial review of Law No. 16 of 2004 on Prosecution virtually, Wednesday (5/3/2023). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held another material judicial review hearing of Article 1 point 3, Article 19 paragraph (2), Article 20, and Article 21 of Law No. 16 of 2004 on the Prosecution on Wednesday, May 3, 2023. The case No. 30/PUU-XXI/2023 was filed by Jovi Andrea Bachtiar, a prosecution analyst/prospective prosecutor at the Tojo Una-Una Prosecution Office, Central Sulawesi Province.

At this second hearing, through legal counsel Welly Anggara, the Petitioner conveyed the revisions to the petition. He had added an explanation to argue that the petition was not ne bis in idem with previous petitions, as it has different objects. He also argued that he did not require approval from his superiors to affirm his legal standing because he is an individual citizen who has constitutional rights. He also detailed the danger of having the AG’s position be filled by a political party member or ex-member.

“Prosecutors execute their duties independently without any influence, including from political parties, so it is appropriate to question this provision. This danger is especially true for the attorney general’s independence in handling, for example, corruption cases,” legal counsel Alfin Julian Nanda explained virtually before Constitutional Justices Suhartoyo, Wahiduddin Adams, and Enny Nurbaningsih.

Also read: Prospective Prosecutor Requests Revision of Definition of Public Prosecutor

At the preliminary hearing, the Petitioner requested that the Court provide a constitutional interpretation to revise the definition of public prosecutor in Article 1 point 3 of the Prosecution Law to also include the Attorney General aside from civil servant (PNS) prosecutors as the Attorney General is a retired prosecutor who is no longer a civil servant. Therefore, the a quo norm would not be in violation of Article 18 paragraph (1) of the Prosecution Law. He also requested that the Court provide interpretation of the appointment of the Attorney General that is without a fit and proper test by the House of Representatives (DPR), which is a form of checks and balances. This, he asserted, could jeopardize the Attorney General’s Office’s independence as a law enforcement institution.

The Petitioner also alleged that Article 20 of the Prosecution Law had allowed anyone who had not had any experience as a prosecutor to become an Attorney General. He revealed that he had worked very hard to build a career as a prosecution analyst for 1-2 years and participated in prosecutor education and training (PPPJ) for months so that he could become a prosecutor. He argued that the norm was in violation of Article 27 paragraph (1), Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 28H paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

Author       : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Fitri Yuliana
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.

---