The Constitutional Court holding a judicial review hearing of the Judiciary Law and Attorney General’s Office Law to examine petition’s revision. Photo by MKRI/Ilham WM.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court held another hearing on Case No. 53/PUU-XXIII/2025 on Wednesday, May 21, 2025. The second hearing was to examine the revised material judicial review petition on several provisions in three laws, Law No. 48 of 2009 on Judiciary (Judiciary Law), Law No. 16 of 2004 on Attorney General’s Office (AGO Law), and Law No. 11 of 2021 on the Amendment to the AGO Law.

The petition was filed by three university students: Alfonsus Salomo Rafel Sihombing, Mikhael Pandya Dewanata, and Milha Niami Maulida. They questioned several articles that they deemed to potentially create an excessive interpretation of the authorities of the State Prosecutor—especially in non-judicial case resolutions.

“We revised the subject of the petition, which now fully mentions the material judicial review of Article 60 paragraph (1) of the Judiciary Law, Article 30 paragraph (2) of the AGO Law, and Article 18 paragraph (2) of Law No. 11 of 2021,” Alfonsus stated in front of the Panel of Justice presided over by Chief Justice Suhartoyo. He also explained that the revision includes the reduction of touchstones from six to three articles and adjustments in petitums and posita.

Also read:

Students Ask to Limit Attorney General’s Authority as the State’s Attorney

During the preliminary hearing, the Petitioners highlighted Article 60 paragraph (1) of the Judiciary Law, which enables dispute settlement through non-litigation channels, such as mediation, conciliation, and expert assessment. They considered that the provisions do not provide clear boundaries, so they potentially blur the line between the judicial and non-judicial processes. The Petitioners explained that the provisions on the prosecutor’s authorities in Article 30 paragraph (2) of the Judiciary Law and Article 18 paragraph (2) of Law No. 11 of 2021 are limited only to a special authorization letter. It is unlike Article 30 paragraph (1), which explicitly regulates the prosecutor’s duties in criminal matters. They also highlighted the Presidential Regulation No. 15 of 2024 and the Attorney General’s Office Regulation No. 7 of 2021, which expands the role of the State’s Attorney, including providing non-judicial legal assistance. According to the Petitioners, the provisions in Article 24, paragraph (2) of the Presidential Regulation open the opportunity for prosecutors to act as legal representatives of both the plaintiff and the defendant.

The Petitioners considered that the absence of limitation means that the prosecutors’ authorities in civil and state administration matters could be broadly interpreted and absolute, both for the government and the prosecutors themselves. It is apparent in the regulation on duties and authorities and the State’s Attorney in Presidential Regulation No. 15 of 2024 on the Third Amendment to the Presidential Regulation No. 38 of 2010 on the Organization and Management of the Attorney General’s Office of the Republic of Indonesia and the Attorney General’s Office Regulation No. 7 of 2021 on the Guidance in the Implementation of Legal Enforcement. Hence, the Petitioners requested the articles to be declared contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. (*)

Author: Utami Argawati
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR: Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina

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.

 

---