The Petitioner’s legal counsel at the second hearing for the judicial review of Law No. 11 of 2021 on the Prosecution Office for case No. 138/PUU-XXIII/2025, Thursday (9/4/2025). Photo by MKRI.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held the second material judicial review hearing of Law No. 11 of 2021 on the Amendment to Law No. 16 of 2004 on the Prosecution Office on Thursday, August 4, 2025. The session served to confirm the withdrawal of the petition, requested through a letter to the Registrar’s Office.

Through counsel Reza Aditya Ramadhan, who appeared before the Court online, the Petitioner confirmed the withdrawal of petition No. 138/PUU-XXIII/2025. Reza explained that his client still needed time to revise the petition, hence the withdrawal.

Also read: Village Chief Challenges Prosecutor’s Authority on Intelligence, Investigation

Yuliantono, chief of Dadapan Village of Ngronggot District, Nganjuk Regency has filed a judicial review petition of Article 30B, specifically the phrase “intelligence sector,” and Article 30B letter a, specifically the word “investigation,” of the Prosecution Law to the Constitutional Court.

At the preliminary hearing for Case No. 138/PUU-XXIII/2025 on Friday, August 22, through 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.

In the petitums, the Petitioner 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.

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.

---