The judicial review hearing of Law No. 16 of 2004 on Prosecution, Wednesday (7/5/2023). Photo by Humas MK/Panji.

---

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, July 5, 2023 in the plenary courtroom. The case No. 30/PUU-XXI/2023 was filed by Jovi Andrea Bachtiar, a prosecution analyst and prospective prosecutor at the Tojo Una-Una Prosecution Office, Central Sulawesi Province.

This seventh hearing was supposed to present the testimony of an expert for the Petitioner. However, due to health issue, they were unable to attend and the Petitioner requested that the hearing be postponed.

“We sent a request of delay to the Registrar’s Office because the Petitioner’s expert’s poor health condition. Please consider to delay the testimony of the expert, Your Honors,” said legal counsel Welly Anggara.

Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra then announced that the hearing will commence on Wednesday, July 12 at 11:00 WIB. “Please submit the expert’s CV and written testimony later on,” he added.

Also read:

Prospective Prosecutor Requests Revision of Definition of Public Prosecutor

House: Attorney General Responsible to President

Law Degree Not Enough for Attorney General

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 alleges 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       : Utami Argawati
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.

---