Chief Justice Anwar Usman opening the material judicial review hearing of Law No. 16 of 2004 on Prosecution, Monday (6/5/2023). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

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 Monday, June 5, 2023 in the plenary courtroom with Chief Justice Anwar Usman as chair. 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. This fourth hearing had been scheduled to hear the testimonies of the House of Representatives (DPR) and the President/Government, but the President/Government withdrew their written testimony that they had submitted to the Registrar’s Office.

“Because the House and the Government requested a delay, this hearing cannot continue and will be adjourned until Monday, June 21, 2023 at 11:00 WIB. On that note, this is the last chance for both to present their testimonies. If not, the next hearing will continue with the next agenda,” Chief Justice Anwar Usman said.

Also read:

Prospective Prosecutor Requests Revision of Definition of Public Prosecutor

Prospective Prosecutor Affirms Background of Petition on Prosecution Law 

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.

---