Petitioners Juanda and Harmoko delivering their petition revision on the judicial review of the Attorney General’s Office Law, Monday (2/6/2025). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court held another hearing on the material judicial review of Article 8 paragraph (5) of Law No. 11 of 2021 on the Amendment to Law No. 16 of 2024 on the Attorney General’s Office (AGO Law) against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. The petition was filed by Harmoko and Juanda. The hearing on Monday, June 2, 2025, on Case No. 67/PUU-XXIII/2025, which was presided over by Chief Justice Suhartoyo, alongside Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh and Justice M. Guntur Hamzah, was to examine the petition revision.

Harmoko stated that the revised pages of the petition included the petitum. “The Petitioners request the Court to declare the provisions of Article 8 paragraph (5) of Law No. 11 of 2021 on the Amendment to Law No. 16 of 2004 on the Attorney General’s Office Law contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and do not have legally binding force as long as it is interpreted as “In carrying out their duties and authorities, summoning, investigating, searching, arresting, and detaining prosecutors can only be exercised with permission from the Attorney General within maximum period of 30 days since the permission is granted,” Harmoko conveying the petition revision.

Also read:

Advocates Question Disparity between Prosecutors and Other Law Enforcement Officials in Attorney General’s Office Law

In the preliminary hearing on Friday, May 16, 2025, the petitioners argued that Article 8 paragraph (5) of the AGO Law gave prosecutors immunity, meaning prosecutors may commit a crime when carrying out their duties and exercising their authority. Meanwhile, summoning, examining, searching, arresting, and detaining may only be conducted with permission from the Attorney General. According to the Petitioners, this article gave the prosecutor disparate treatment from other law enforcers, such as judges, police, and advocates. The norm was also deemed not to provide exceptions to the qualifications and types of crimes prosecutors may commit.

Meanwhile, despite having an immunity right, as stipulated in Article 16 of the Advocates Law and further emphazied by the Constitutional Court Decision No. 26/PUU-XI/2013, advocates must be examined and apprehended without written permission from the chairmen of advocate organizations or other parties when carrying out their professional duties in good faith but violating the law. With the different treatment, the provisions in Article 8 paragraph 5 of the Prosecutor's Office Law contradict Article 27 paragraph (1), Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, which recognized the principle of equality before the law.

Then the Petitioners also requested that the Court declare the provisions of Article 8 paragraph (5) 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 contradict the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and have no binding legal force as long as it is not interpreted as “In carrying out its duties and authorities, summoning, examination, searching, arresting, and detaining prosecutors can only be made with the written approval of the President and if the President does not give the written approval within a maximum period of 30 (thirty) days from the receipt of the application letter, the investigation process followed by detention can be carried out immediately.”

 Penulis: Sri Pujianti
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P.
Humas: Tiara Agustina

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.

---