The Petitioner and legal counsels at the preliminary hearing for the judicial review of Law No. 11 of 2021 on the Prosecution Office, Friday (8/22/2025). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Yuliantono, chief of Dadapan Village of Ngronggot District, Nganjuk Regency has filed a judicial review petition of Law No. 11 of 2021 on the Amendment to Law No. 16 of 2004 on the Prosecution Office of the Republic of Indonesia to the Constitutional Court (MK). He challenges Article 30B, specifically the phrase “Intelligence Sector,” and Article 30B letter a, specifically the word “Investigation.”

The preliminary hearing for Case No. 138/PUU-XXIII/2025 was convened on Friday, August 22, 2025, chaired by Chief Justice Suhartoyo. Represented by legal counsel Prayogo Laksono, Yuliantono argued that the phrase and word “Intelligence Sector” and “Investigation” in Article 30B of the Prosecution Law are inconsistent with the 1945 Constitution. His petition stemmed from his status as a reported party in a corruption case currently under investigation by the Nganjuk District Prosecution Office.

The Petitioner argued that granting prosecutors in the intelligence sector the authority to conduct investigations and use them as a basis for prosecution could lead to multiple interpretations and potential arbitrariness. He contended that the provision fails to provide legal certainty and disregards the constitutional rights of citizens before the law.

“Investigations should be clearly regulated by law, including specification of the officials authorized to conduct them. However, the Prosecution Law does not set this out explicitly, thereby contravening the principle of a state based on the rule of law,” Prayogo submitted before the panel of justices.

He further referred to Constitutional Court Decision No. 28/PUU-V/2007, which had previously examined the authority of prosecutors to act as investigators. By way of comparison, he argued that both the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) and the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) Law explicitly regulate the status of investigators, whereas the Prosecution Law creates a legal vacuum.

On this basis, Yuliantono requested the Court to declare Article 30B letter a of the Prosecution Law unconstitutional and not legally binding. He also sought a ruling that the phrase “Intelligence Sector” in Article 30B and the word “Investigation” in Article 30B letter a are unconstitutional and without binding legal force. 

Advice to Strengthen Arguments

Responding to the petition, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh advised the Petitioner to revisit and refine his arguments by grounding them in legal doctrine and comparative practices from other jurisdictions concerning the necessity of intelligence functions. He noted that in some countries such functions might, in fact, be permissible.

“The posita (reason for the petition) should be refined,” he added.

Author         : Utami Argawati
Editor          : Nur R.
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.

---