Member of the Third Commission of the House of Representatives, Rugianto Lallo, delivering the House’s testimony during the judicial review hearing of Law No. 11 of 2021 on the Amendment to Law No. 16 of 2004 on the Attorney General’s Office of the Republic of Indonesia, Monday (26/5/2025), at the Plenary Courtroom. Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court held another judicial review hearing of Law No. 11 of 2021 on the Amendment to Law No. 16 of 2004 on the Attorney General’s Office of the Republic of Indonesia (AGO Law), Monday, May 26, 2025, at the Plenary Courtroom. The hearing of Case No. 9/PUU-XXIII/2025 was to hear the House of Representatives’ testimony.

Two advocates, Agus Salim and Agung Arafat Saputra, filed the petition questioning the constitutionality of Article 8 paragraph (5) of the AGO Law. The Article stipulates that legal action against prosecutors, such as summoning, examination, searching, arrest, and detention, may only be carried out with permission from the Attorney General.

Responding to this, the House, represented by a member of the Third Commission, Rudianto Lallo, during the hearing presided over by Chief Justice Suhartoyo, stated that the provision is essential to ensure the legal protection for prosecutors as law enforcers who have vital roles.

Prosecutors carry out their duties for the state to enforce the law, protect human rights, and maintain the state's finances and honor. Hence, legal protection in the form of the Attorney General’s permit prior to imposing legal action against the prosecutor is reasonable instead of discrimination,” Rudianto stated before the Panel of Justices.

He added that the regulation is aligned with the international standards, including the United Nations’ Declaration, which emphasizes the importance of legal protection for prosecutors and their families. According to him, Article 8 paragraph (5) must be interpreted as part of Article 8 of the AGO Law. It guarantees the professional and responsible implementation of the prosecutor’s duties.

“The material review petition against the article cannot be separated from its linkage to the whole structure of the articles and criminal law procedures, especially Article 1 point 1 of the AGO Law juncto Article 1 point 6 letter a of the Criminal Law Procedure,” he stated.

Also read: 

Petitioners Question Prosecutors’ Unlimited Immunity

Advocates Revise Petition on Prosecutors’ Immunity

The petition for case No. 9/PUU-XXIII/2025 was filed by advocates Agus Salim and Agung Arafat Saputra. They challenge Article 8 paragraph (5) of the Prosecution Law, which reads, “In exercising their duties and authority, summon, inspection, search, arrest, and detention against a prosecutor may only be executed with Attorney General’s approval.”

At the preliminary hearing on Wednesday, March 5, legal counsel Ibnu Syamsu Hidayat argued that the article has given prosecutors absolute immunity, thus could potentially hinder supervision and increase the risk of abuse of authority.

“The article has led to absolute immunity of prosecutors, so that control or supervision over the performance of prosecutors has become difficult. It could potentially lead to abuse of authority, ‘superpower’ practices, and even corruption acts. Therefore, there must be a clear limit on the right to immunity of law enforcement apparatuses,” Ibnu said.

The Petitioners compared the right to immunity of prosecutors and that of advocates, which is regulated under Article 16 of Law No. 18 of 2003 on Advocates. The article stipulates that advocates cannot be prosecuted either civilly or criminally in carrying out their professional duties in good faith for the defense of clients in court.

The Petitioners believes that there should also be a similar limit on the right to immunity of prosecutors in order to preserve the principle of equality before the law. “This phrase is highly catch-all and has no legal certainty. It makes it easy for something that prosecutors should not do to be claimed as something within the execution of their duties and authority,” Ibnu stressed.

Therefore, in the petitums, the Petitioners requested that the Court grant their petition. They also asked that the Court declare Article 8 paragraph (5) of the Prosecution Law unconstitutional.

Read the revised petition No. 9/PUU-XXIII/2025 here.

Author: Utami Argawati
Editor: N. Rosi
PR: Tiara Agustina
Translator: Rizky Kurnia Chaesario/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.

---