The petitioners of Case No. 15/PUU-XXIII/2025 during the preliminary hearing, Thursday (13/2/2025). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.
Jakarta (MKRI) – Agus Setiawan (Activist/Student), Sulaiman (Advocate), and Chairman of Madani Youth Association (Perhimpunan Pemuda Madani), Furqan Jurdi, filed a material judicial review petition of Law No. 11 of 2021 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 16 of 2024 on Attorney General’s Office of the Republic of Indonesia (Attorney General’s Office Law) against the 1945 Constitution to the Constitutional Court. The petitioners challenged Article 11 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2), Article 30B letter a, Article 35 paragraph (1) letter g and letter e of the General Attorney’s Office Law. The hearing of Case No. 15/PUU-XXIII/2025 was held on Thursday, March 13, 2025.
Article 11 paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Attorney General’s Office Law state, “(1) Prosecutors may be assigned to occupy or fill positions: a. outside the Prosecutor's Office; b. at representatives of the Republic of Indonesia abroad; c. in international organizations; d. in international professional organizations; or e. in other assignments. (2) The implementation of the duties of the Prosecutor as referred to in paragraph (1) may be carried out with concurrent positions as long as it is related to the competence and authority of the Prosecutor.”
Article 30B letter a of the Attorney General's Office Law states, “In the field of law enforcement intelligence, the Attorney General's Office is authorized to: a. carry out the functions of investigation, security, and mobilization for the purposes of law enforcement.”
Article 35 paragraph (1) letter g and letter e of the Attorney General's Office Law states, “The Attorney General has the duties and authorities: e. may submit technical legal considerations to the Supreme Court in cassation examinations within the scope of the general courts, state administrative courts, religious courts, and military courts; g. coordinate, control, and conduct investigations, examinations, and prosecutions of criminal offenses jointly committed by persons subject to the general courts and military courts.”
The Petitioners argued that the articles were contrary to Article 30 paragraph (3) and paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution. Based on the provisions of Article 11A of the Attorney General’s Office Law, the Prosecutor’s duties implementation, as referred to in paragraph (1), may be conducted with concurrent positions as long as they relate to the competence and authority of the Prosecutor. According to the Petitioners, this is contrary to Article 24 paragraph (1) and paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution because the extension of the Prosecutor’s duties to occupy or fill positions outside the prosecutorial institution undermines the freedom and independence of the institution.
“Authorizing the prosecutor to fill any position without a firm and clear regulation will make the Prosecutor’s Office a multifunctional institution that causes damage to the independence of the Prosecutor’s Office,” Agus Setiawan explained during the panel hearing led by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra.
Subsequently, Sulaiman added arguments related to the provisions of Article 35 paragraph (1) letter e of Law No. 21 of 2021 that gives the authority to the Attorney General to submit technical legal considerations to the Supreme Court in the cassation examination within the scope of general courts, state administrative courts, religious courts, and military courts. According to the Petitioners, the said Attorney General’s authority was a form of legalized covert intervention through the interpretation of the phrase “legal technical.” In other words, the Petitioners opined that the Attorney General’s authority to give technical consideration to the Supreme Court to all judiciary offices would potentially lead to full control of the Attorney General in the legal process.
The Petitioners also questioned the extension of the prosecutor's duties and authorities in Article 35 paragraph (1) letter g of the Attorney General’s Office Law to coordinate, control, and conduct investigations, examinations, and prosecutions of criminal offenses, which may lead to overlapping authorities. Sulaiman added that the prosecutors’ authority in the examination should be limited to specific criminal offenses stipulated under law and regulations.
“Based on these arguments, the Petitioners request the Court to declare Article 11 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2), Article 30B, Article 35 paragraph (1) letter e and letter g of Law No. 11 of 2021 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 16 of 2004 on General Attorney’s Office Law contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and do not have legally binding power,” Furqan read out the petitum of the petition.
Justices’ Advice
Regarding the Petitioners’ arguments, Justice Arsul Sani gave several notes related to one Petitioner’s identity, who represents an organization that did not submit the organization’s articles of association and bylaws to strengthen its legal standing. “It is better for the Petitioners to study petitions and decisions of the Constitutional Court to learn the petition systematics that have been revised. Then, the Petitioners need to improve their legal standing as stipulated in the Constitutional Court Regulation No. 2 of 2021,” Justice Arsul explained.
Meanwhile, Justice Ridwan Mansyur stated that the Petitioners needed to elaborate their legal standings so that constitutional losses and contradictions could be made clear. Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra also advised the Petitioners to be consistent in their petition. “The articles tested must be consistent, what is being said, and the reasons as well as the petitum must be related,” Deputy Chief Justice Saldi stated.
Before closing the hearing, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi stated that the Petitioners were given 14 days to amend the petition. The revision must be submitted to the Registrar’s Office on Wednesday, March 26, 2025, at the latest. The Court will then schedule the next hearing to hear the petition revision.(*)
Author: Sri Pujianti
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR: Raisa Ayuditha M.
Translator: Rizky Kurnia Chaesario
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.
Thursday, March 13, 2025 | 13:59 WIB 289