Advanced Search

Test The Material Constitutional Court Number 33/puu-X/2012 Year 2012

Original Language Title: Uji Materi Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 33/PUU-X/2012 Tahun 2012

Subscribe to a Global-Regulation Premium Membership Today!

Key Benefits:

Subscribe Now for only USD$40 per month.
community-wide as the "opportunity"

8

and the equation of legal position is held in high regard by the 1945 Constitution.

3. To expand the mandate as a leader in an instance or

state and government agencies with regard to

public services as Polri is essentially a position

a leadership that can be performed by anyone who would also

already have leadership capabilities, because for leadership level

at anp>[1.2] Name: Erik

Work: Private

Address: Asri Block J7 Block Number 13, Prohibition, Tangerang-

15154

Next is called as ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hearing the applicant's description;

Checking the applicant ' s evidence;

2. SITTING MATTER

[2.1] A draw that the applicant has applied with

a letter of request without a date received in the Court of Justice

The Constitution (subsequently called the Court of Justice) on the date 14 March

2012 based on the Deed Receipt of the Request File Number 88 /PAN.MK/ 2012

and noted in the Book of Constitutional Registration on March 21, 2012

with Number 33 /PUU-X/2012, which has been corrected and accepted in the

The court on April 23, 2012, at its point elaborate on things

as follows:

2

I. AUTHORITY OF THE COURT 1. That Article 24 paragraph (2) of the Basic Law of 1945 (subsequently called

UUD ' 45) states " The judicial power is done by a

Supreme Court and the judicial body which is below it in

the environment General justice, the judicial environment of religion, the environment

Military justice, the judicial environment of the state enterprise, and by an

Constitutional Court. "

2. That Article 24C paragraph (1) of the Constitution of 1945, Article 10 of the paragraph (1) of the letter a Invite-

Invite Number 24 Year 2003 on the Constitutional Court (Sheet

State of the Republic of Indonesia 2003 No. 98, Extra Sheet

State of the Republic of Indonesia Number 4316, further called the MK Act) and

Article 29 paragraph (1) letter a Law No. 48 Year 2009 on

Judiciary Authority (State Sheet of the Republic of Indonesia Year

2009 Number 157, Additional Republican Institute of State Indonesia Number

5076) stated " Constitutional Court of competent authority on

The final and final level of the verdict is final to test

Act against the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia

in 1945.

Driving with the legal basis against that Constitutional Court in

up with existing jurisdiction then the Constitutional Court is entitled and

authorized to conduct the testing of the materials Section 11 paragraph (6), Section 15 of the paragraph (1) letter g, and Article 18 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) Act Number 2 of the Year 2002 on the Indonesian State Police against the Constitution

1945.

II. LEGAL STANDING (LEGAL STANDING) PEMOHON 1. That Article 51 paragraph (1) of the Act of MK and its explanation states:

"The applicant is a party that considers the right and/or authority

its constitutionality is harmed by the law, that is:

a. Individual citizen of Indonesia;

b. the unity of indigenous law society as long as it is alive and appropriate

with the development of the community and the principle of the State of Unity

The Republic of Indonesia is set in undra;

c. public legal entity or Private; or

d. State agencies.

3

2. That next in the Constitutional Court Decree Number 006 /PUU-

III/2005 and the Constitutional Court Decree Number 011 /PUU-V/2007 have

determined 5 (five) terms of rights and/or authority losses

constitutional as referred to in Section 51 of the paragraph (1) of the MK Act at

above as follows:

a. the rights and/or constitutional authority of the applicant

provided by UUD 1945;

b. the rights and/or the constitutional authority it is considered to have been

and/or may be harmed by the enactment of the Act which

is required to perform such testing;

c. the rights and/or authority should be specific (special) and

actual or at least a potential that according to the reasoning that

reasonable is certain to occur;

d. A causal relationship (causal verband) between the loss

is referred to the inexpiring Act

testing;

e. It is possible that with the request of a request then

that constitutional loss will not or no longer occur.

3. That the applicant as an individual citizen of the Republic of Indonesia,

and also based on the KTP evidence are ordinary civilians who are in

the everyday life of society, nation and state, of course

including those of the will and can experience the impact, whether it is

directly or indirectly; from the enacdoing of the Act

along with its given powers that

potentially the authority absolute, reducing or The rights to the rights

and/or the constitutional authority of the citizens, or those no

has legal certainty, then it has qualified legal standing (legal standing) for the applicant as a citizen of the citizen to submit to the Constitutional Court, and the applicant has rights and interests to deliver a material (judicial review) test as it also has complied with the provisions of Article 51 of the paragraph (1) of the above mentioned, associated with it or the onset of the provisions contained in the The articles

4

is required for its confirmation of Article 11 paragraph (6), Section 15 of the paragraph (1) letter g, Section 18 of the paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) Act No. 2 of 2002 of the Indonesian State Police, as it may result in being harmed. or at least a reduced constitutional right

the applicant as a citizen of the country individually

or against the public in general it should be

more guaranteed by the state based on the Constitution.

4. That in the 1945 Constitution and its Amandemes has clearly placed

the constitutional rights of citizens as warranted and

protected by the constitution and should not be broken or

In order of rights This is the constitutional law

invitation or other rule under it for the rules

It must be subject to the 1945 Constitution. Therefore, it is

always the rule of Undang-Undnag or any other ordinance that

under that 1945 Constitution if it wants to be issued or set

should be intended to be more corroborating, clarify, or

Reguring the spirit contained from the Constitution itself

that is the form of a law state that prioritized the sovereignty of the people,

not making the state its rules are held to

sacrifice or even exploit the rights of the people with

the emergence of the norms of articles that blurred or obscure and potentially

gives rise to the misappropriation of power resulting from the regulations

such that it is like putting citizens as a commodity

from the "regulatory industry" as a result of the uncertainty of the ls, and/or as well as in "the scene"

The size is also not Clear.

5. However, without having to be the "victim" first of

there is the first act of authority on the premises, then in

the applicant has been harmed in its constitutional rights with

the rise of uncertainty. laws resulting from unclear intent and

the norm of Section 15 paragraph (1) letter g No. 2 Year 2002

this.

6. Thus the applicant is in the subject of this application

the authority of the Constitutional Court is guaranteed and granted in

the Constitution, pledging that Section 15 of the letter (1) of the letter be revoked and

thus should cancel for the sake of the Constitutional Court. the law for not being clear and not

has legal certainty that resulted in breaking the constitution.

III.4. SUBJECT TO THE SUBJECT OF THE 1945 PARAGRAPH (1) AND PARAGRAPH (2) OF THE LAW OF 1945, AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION OF 1945

Testing of materials on Section 18 of the paragraph (1) Act No. 2 of the Year

2002, which states: "For the general interest of the State Police officials

Republic of Indonesia in carrying out the duties and its authority may act according to its own judgment; and Article 18 paragraph (2), which states: " Implementation of the provisions as

referred to in paragraph (1) can only be done in circumstances the very

12

needs with regard to the laws, as well as the National Police Department of Conduct Code of Indonesia.

According to the applicant contradictory to the 1945 Constitution and harming the right

constitutionality of citizens (throughout the phrase "acting according to its assessment

itself", and the phrase "very necessary circumstances") is:

Article 27 paragraph (1), which states: " All citizens at the same time it is in its place. laws and governments and is obliged to uphold that law and government with no Except for that. "

Article 28D paragraph (1), stating: "Each person is entitled to the recognition, assurance, protection, and legal certainty of fair and equal treatment before the law."

Article 28G paragraph (1), which states: " Everyone is entitled to personal protection, family, honor, dignity, and property

under his rule, and entitled to a sense of safety and protection.

of the threat of fear to committing or not to do something

is a fundamental right. "

Article 28I paragraph (2), stated: Everyone is entitled free of any discriminatory treatment on any basis and entitled to obtain protection against that discriminatory treatment ".

With the explanation and reason of the subject of the application as follows:

1. Norm Article 18 paragraph (1) which contains the "authority to be able to act

according to its own judgment" ...? then act according to its own assessment which

like what? The items listed in this section have been created

the uncertainty of the law as it is not clear to the meaning of acting according to

this self-assessment and a very meaningful broad that could mean anything

or any action that is performed according to his own assessment of

understanding si apparatus/police officials.

2. Once the subjective meaning contained in this section is in its nature

is not eligible to be included as the contents of the paragraph nor

section of a law, as this is

one Fatal constitutional violations due to uncertainties

laws incurred or potential violations of rights

constitutionally arising from the presence of an invite-

rule section

this invitation. It is the rules that are issued during the day.

13

still in the frame of the Republic of Indonesia's Republic of Indonesia which

Constitution-based is supposed to be made to further clarify and

regurus the spirit of the Basic Law, not precisely

otherwise, which reduces the meaning of the sovereignty of the people contained in

in the Constitution itself.

3. The legal vagueness arising from Article 18 of the paragraph (1) is due to

beginning with the authoring of an authority that

is deemed necessary to do so according to the apparatus, and this is highly

potentially compromising rights. constitutional citizen that

should be guaranteed higher because it is listed in the Invite-

Invite Basic 1945 but in fact it may be defeated

by the emergence of the authority in this Act is either that is

a violation of human rights or constitutional violations

Another. And so extent the sense of action according to its own judgment is

from whether it's a good, neutral, or negative action and

even in violation of the law as an act of seizure,

extortion, intimidation, Threats, shootings, or even refraction which are included in the act according to other self-assessments, too, but it's unfortunate that this is protected by

the pretext of the Act (because the undings give out

the odds with the norm Article 18 of the paragraph (1), though it is said

dialimat originally for general interest but benchmarks of interest

common is also unclear and can sometimes be misconstrued or

abused by more powerful parties or parties

(like the company) or other bodies) who claim this for the sake of

a common interest that maintains internal security, as it could

only be affected by the power of the material it owns

the apparatus for performing the action according to the assessment For the sake of subterfuge

The common interest.

4. Thus, the contents of this Section 18 paragraph (1) are eligible to be removed or

replaced with a clearer content or norm, referentif, or

specific. And for that the country must guarantee the absence of creation

An Act that contains articles or a meaningful verse not

is clear as this is because it has caused legal uncertainty,

14

potentially harming the applicant as a citizen and a citizen

another society as it could have been or at any time was enacted

"an action according to its own judgment" was not clear

that was. While there is an explanation of the article stating

the need for consideration as well as an emerging risk, but can

it is also defined to provide different oppressive opportunities

in different societies. as for example against a person

a minority, marginal group, or weaker society, or

even individual citizens, who can be enacted in action

that is unfair or discriminatory for example because The risk is not as big as

if action is done on the part of the community, entity/agency,

or more powerful parties for example and form of consideration

which is different anyway.

Although this further is mentioned by the benchmark benefit that is not

>

4. Therefore, the contents of this Section 15 paragraph (1) of the letter are eligible to be removed

or replaced with a clearer content or norm, referentif, or

specific. And for that the country must guarantee the absence of creation

An act that contains articles or a meaningful verse not

is clear as this is because it has generated legal uncertainty, potentially

harms the applicant as citizens and other citizens

because it could be or at any time it applies "the first act" that

its size is unclear, it i is clearly an irony and a calamality that occurs in a state of law if this happens. Because of its broad but unrestricted authority/power

clearly it will have a tendency to do the violence

first and trigger the contagious violence in the next

cycle. Then because of the violence that started with abuse

The power contains an element of injustice and an authority-

there will be a chain of violence and widespread violence

perpetually.

It's the condition that's actually going on lately and it becomes

A violent phenomenon that is relentless, nothing but violence.

18

as mentioned above is actually triggered or initiated

by the ruling party itself the authority/power that

owns it is more powerful than the ordinary citizens obtained from

The authority of the Act, and its unrestricted spaces

is clearly obtained from the laws,

because in such laws it is ironically not

mentions the limitations of which clear and not the rules or the shape

the power of the counterweight so that potentially making it an absolute, and

absolute condition has a tendency to corrupt, and corrupt is

the initial seed of injustice because the meaning of corrupt is nothing else is

misappropriation/abuse of power that is shaped no other

is a "violence" in a broad sense and leads to

injustice, and if until this happens it will create violence

for the sake of serial violence and continual progress

as the cycle which has been described earlier above.

Violence in this sense is also not always physical

but also nonphysical violence in any non-physical form the combination of

both like blackmail, exploitation, threat, exposure

occurrence of violence, nor any other act. It was done because

there was a power abuse (power power).

4. To be aware and understand the root of this violence, there is a

postulate about the philosophy of power, that is, "Power essentially has a tendency to corrupt and unbatted power (absolute power) already will be sure. and become corrupt ". The corrupt definition here is actually the use of force

which in it is no other variety of "violent" forms ranging from

arbitrariness, physical violence (violation), rights appropriation,

the slayer public, corruption, including the occurrence of the

violence/corruption itself, and various forms of abuse

other power. If this unrestricted power continues to occur and

even be left or instead created in the pretext of the good Act

it is intentionally or inadvertently, then none other than this is

a crime by the state and the is a constitutional violation

a remarkable or systemic violence committed by the state

19

for sacrificing the constitutional rights of its people, whereas

the independence of the people confirmed in this constitution was

the original goal of the independence of independence, and the extermination

is The great betrayal of the sovereign state

the people of /democratic, and signifide the failure of the state of law that wants

built on the basis of the law of the consistion. So if until this

happens no wonder if the state gets caught in a circle

relentless violence.

5. Therefore, the granting of the mentioned authority "can act

according to its own judgment" in Article 18 of the paragraph (1) of the Act

Number 2 of the Year 2002 may be defined to provide power and

authority without The limits are clear and even if it is said to exist

limits but its nature is still too normative and immeasurable. And

a near-absolute form of power/authority like this already

items will certainly tend to be corrupt in various forms, though

indeed are explained further in paragraph (2) as if there were

limits with In regard to laws and codes

a professional ethics, but this is also the only "paying attention"

as written in the verse (2) and in fact in

the court of the party is empowered in the matter of the time. This is the police force.

Superior despite claiming to have "noticed." but in some

cases up to the lecture and violence against the rights

the rights and constitutional rights of the citizens themselves should

be more guaranteed in the 1945 Constitution as the basis of the country that has

the legal position is higher than the Act, in which case the Invite-

Invite Number 2 Year 2002.

And also this verse in the end is also more often misconstrued and

used unilaterally by the authorities given the authority in

This Act by performing the act of any means that

is considered right including using violence even until

sacrificing constitutional rights and human rights/citizens, and

when there was a misappropriation and the arbitrariness

in the end that was the victim is a citizen, and

one of the proof is still his absolve of power that exists and This too

20

being ironic is the repellation can also be done only by

Provost or Provost, which is also no other part of

the police agency itself.

It's continuing until now. And continued to be allowed to happen, though

in the midst of many other surveillance agencies yet still have

weak authority as well as the Police Commission or

The human rights committee only authorized to issue a recommendations

and do not have the authority to crack down or at least have

A power balanced against the police. And all the circles

this problem is the result of a still existence of power

A police force that is too vast and potentially corrupt because

absolutisy and this begins because of the contents of its und-Laws that

allowing it to happen like giving blanko a blank. Therefore,

as an evaluation also relates to this, the closer human rights movement in

aspects of human rights enforcement and to further ensure the protection of the rights

the constitutional of the citizens then it is as well as granted

broader authority to be able to perform the investigation,

oppressor, until prosecution is related to human rights violations

the human being, not just against the police and military apparatus,

but also against other parties, so it is necessary

sufficient authority also to be able to perform investigation,

investigation, oppressor, and prosecution as authority

sama has been held by the National Commission of Corruption Eradication (KPK) in

eradicating corruption. If a country is committed to this

and a faith to further ensure its fairness of truth and justice,

then the applicant is confident that this country will be increasingly loved by its people

as citizens and will continue to be Full-time support.

Supplement Advisory: Giving Authority to the Comnas of Human Rights with wider authevel

will be. The existence of the existence of the state itself is because it has been taken. The independence of the people despite the legal pretext However

a law that has gone out of meaning and spirit/ruh of justice.

3. That true power and violence are the two things that

relate to one another. And a real violence is born and

instead of the actual, more powerful or most powerful

party, in which case the state apparatus is authorized/empowered

in the Act. But the unconstrained or unrestricted power of powerse who consider the rights and/or authority

the constitutionality given by the 1945 Constitution is harmed by the enactment of a

Act, i.e.:

a. Individual citizens of Indonesia (including groups of people

have common interests);

b. the unity of the indigenous law society as long as it is alive and in accordance with

the development of the society and the principle of the Republic of the Republic of Indonesia

which is set in Undang-Undang;

c. the public or private legal entity; or

d. state agencies;

Thus, the applicant in testing the Act against the UUD

1945 must explain and prove first:

a. The position of the applicant is referred to in Article 51 of the paragraph

(1) of the MK Act;

b. the absence of the constitutional rights and/or constitutional authority provided by

The 1945 Constitution resulting from the enactment of the Act

is mohoned testing;

[3.6] A draw that the Court since the Court ' s ruling Constitution

Number 006 /PUU-III/2005, dated 31 May 2005 and a Court ruling

25

Constitution Number 11 /PUU-V/2007, dated 20 September 2007, as well as the ruling-

subsequent ruling that the loss of rights and/or authority

constitutional as referred to in Article 51 of the paragraph (1) Act MK must

meet five terms, that is:

a. the rights and/or constitutional authority of the applicant given by

Constitution of 1945;

b. The rights and/or constitutional authority by the applicant are considered

aggrieved by the enactment of the testing Act;

c such constitutional losses must be specific (special) and actual or

At least a potential that according to reasonable reasoning can be confirmed

will occur;

d. (causal verband) link between the intended loss

and the expiring Act (s) of the testing;

e. It is possible that with the request of a request then

constitutional losses such as those that are postured will not or no longer occur;

[3.7] Draw that the applicant postulate as a citizen

Indonesia have a constitutional right set in Article 27 paragraph (1),

Article 28C paragraph (2), Section 28D paragraph (1) and paragraph (3), Section 28G paragraph (1), Section 28I

paragraph (2), and Article 30 of the paragraph (1) of the Constitution of 1945 which states:

Article 27 verse (1): "All citizens simultaneously in the

laws and governance and shall uphold the law and governance

with no exception".

Section 28C paragraph (2): Each person entitled to advance itself in

champing her right collectively to build society, nation,

and her country ".

Article 28D paragraph (1): "Everyone is entitled to the recognition, warranty, protection,

and fair legal certainty as well as the same treatment before the law".

Section 28D paragraph (3): "Each citizen is entitled to obtain the opportunity

same in government ".

Article 28G paragraph (1): " Everyone is entitled to personal protection, family,

honor, dignity, and property under his power, and

26

reserves the right to feel safe and protection from the threat of fear to do

or do not do something that is a birthright ".

Article 28I paragraph (2): "Everyone is entitled free of The

discriminatory treatment of any basis and is entitled to a protection against

that discriminatory treatment ".

Article 30 paragraph (1): " Each citizen is entitled and mandatory to participate in

state defense and security efforts ".

According to the applicant its constitutional right has been disadvantaged by

the enactment of Article 11 of the paragraph (6), Section 15 of the paragraph (1) letter g, and Section 18 of the paragraph (1) and

paragraph (2) Act 2/2002 which states:

Article 11 paragraph (6), "Kapolri candidate is the State Police High Officer

Republic of Indonesia which is still active with regard to the rank of rank

and career".

Article 15 paragraph (1) of the g stating, "Doing the first act at

the scene";

Article 18 paragraph (1), " For the general interest of the Republican State Police official

Indonesia in carrying out its duties and its authority may act according to

its own judgment "; and

Section 18 paragraph (2), " Implementation of the provisions as referred to in paragraph (1)

only performed in very necessary circumstances with

pay attention Legislation, as well as the Code of Ethics

The State Police of the Republic of Indonesia ".

[3.8] A draw that further the Court will consider

the constitutional rights of the applicant as the ruling is harmed by the expiring

provisions of Article 11 paragraph (6), Section 15 of the paragraph (1) letter g, and Article 18 verse (1) and

paragraph (2) Act 2/2002, as follows:

[3.8.1] Draw, regarding the Applicant Proposition that Section 11 paragraph (6), Section 15

paragraph (1) of the letter g and Article 18 of the paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) Act 2/2002 contradictory

with Article 27 paragraph (1), Section 28C paragraph (2), Article 28D paragraph (1) and paragraph (3),

Article 28G paragraph (1), Section 28 I paragraph (2), as well as Article 30 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, according to

27

The court, with regard to the Applicant is then connected

with the constitutional right specified in Article 27 of the paragraph (1), Section 28C

paragraph (2), Section 28D paragraph (1) and paragraph (3), Section 28G paragraph (1), Section 28I verse (2),

as well as Article 30 of the paragraph (1) of the Constitution of 1945, the applicant is potentially harmed by the prevailing

clause a quo when granted the applicant's request then

the possibility of such a constitutional loss will not be. or no longer occurs.

Thus, there is a causal relationship (causal verband) between

the constitutional loss of the applicant with the enactment of Article 11 paragraph (6), Article 15

paragraph (1) of the letter g and Article 18 of the paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) Act 2/2002;

[3.8.2] Balanced That Under Section 51 Paragraph (1) MK Act and assessment

The court as described in the above consideration, according to

The applicant court has a legal standing (legal standing) for

applying for Act 2/2002 testing a quo to the Court;

[3.9] weighed that by due to the court of competent prosecuting

invocation a quo and the applicant have a legal position (legal standing)

to apply>

first and last the verdict is final to test the Invite-

Invite against UUD 1945;

[3.4] Draw that by the request the applicant is

testing the Act in casu Act 2/2002 against UUD 1945 then

The court of authorities prosecuted the request of the applicant;

Legal Standing (Legal Standing) The applicant

[3.5] weighed that under Article 51 of the paragraph (1) MK Act and

The explanation, which may apply for testing of the Act

against the Constitution of 1945. are tho and

Authority, so in reading the provisions It must be associated

with the principal task and authority of the State Police of Indonesia

as defined in Section 13 and Section 14 of the Act 2/2002. With

thus "acting in its own judgment" as contained in

Article 18 paragraph (1) Act 2/2002 is in the framework of the principal task and authority

The State Police of the Republic of Indonesia. In addition, the provisions of Article 18 of the paragraph (1)

Act 2/2002 are for the general interest and not the interests of the person

the individual or the particular group. As such, the provisions of Article 18

31

paragraph (1) Act 2/2002 gives a clear limitation to what the Republic of the Republic of the Republic of the Republic of the Republic of Indonesia can do and cannot do. The Indonesian State Police should not act according to

its own assessment if not "for the general interest". Explanation of Article 18

paragraph (1) Act 2/2002 states, referred to to act according to

its own judgment, " ...is an act that can be done by

the member of the State Police Indonesia which in action must

consider the benefits and risks of its actions and are true to

general interest ". From the explanation of Article 18 of the paragraph (1) of the Act 2/2002,

The State Police of the Republic of Indonesia in performing the principal duties and

the authority must consider the benefits and risks of its actions

and are true to General interest. The provisions of the limitations

in the conduct of Polri ' s duties are related to the discretive authority. Because

that, if the applicant's request is granted then the limitation is referred to

does not exist and will thus open the opportunity for Polri to

act with arbitrates. Based on such considerations,

according to the Court, the section is motionless in testing

the constitutionality of a quo is unwarranted according to the law;

The Related Articles of Article 18 of the paragraph (2) Act 2/2002, according to the Court, provision

it must be read by reference to the provisions of Section 18 of the paragraph (1) Act

2/2002, i.e. for the general interest of the Indonesian State Police

in carrying out the duties and its authority can only do

actions by his own judgment in a very necessary state

with Regard to the laws, as well as the Code of Ethics

The State Police of the Republic of Indonesia. Therefore, according to the Court,

section a quo is in order to perform the principal duties and authority

the police force. Under such consideration, according to the Court, Article 18

paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) Act 2/2002 do not conflict with the 1945 Constitution so

The applicant is unwarranted according to the law;

[3.14] A draw that is based on the The entire consideration is above,

according to the Court, the applicant ' s plea is unwarranted according to the law;

32

4. KONKLUSI

Based on the assessment of the facts and laws as described in

above, the Court concluded:

[4.1] The court is authorized to prosecute a quo;

[4.2] The applicant has Legal standing (legal standing) to

apply a quo;

[4.3] The request of the applicant is unwarranted according to law;

Based on the Basic Law of the Republic of Indonesia of Indonesia Year

1945, Law No. 24 of 2003 on Constitutional Court

as amended with the 2011 8 Year Act on

Changes to the Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Court

Constitution (State Sheet of the Republic of Indonesia of 2011 Number 70,

Additional Sheet Negara Indonesia Number 5226), and Invite-

Invite Number 48 Year 2009 On The Power Of Justice (State Sheet

Republic Of Indonesia 2009 Number 157, Additional Sheet Of Country

Republic Indonesia Number 5076);

5. AMAR RULING

PROSECUTING,

States denied the applicant for the whole.

It was decided at the Judge's Consultative Meeting

attended by the nine Constitutional Judges, Moh. Mahfud MD as Chairman

arrested Member, Achmad Sodiki, Maria Farida Indrati, Anwar Usman,

Muhammad Alim, M. Akil Mochtar, Harjono, Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi, and Hamdan

Zoelva, respectively as Member, at on Wednesday, respectively. date two, month

January, year two thousand thirteen, and spoken in the Plenary Session

The Constitutional Court is open to the public at Tuesday, the fifteenth date,

January, year two thousand three , finished pronounced at 10:40 WIB,

by the nine Justices of the Constitution of Moh. Mahfud MD as the Chairman, Achmad Sodiki, Maria Farida Indrati, Anwar Usman, Muhammad Alim, M.

Akil Mochtar, Harjono, Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi, and Hamdan Zoelva, respectively

33

as Member, accompanied by Cholidin Nasir as Panitera

Replacement, attended by the Government or representing, the House of Representatives

People or represent, without being attended by the petitioner.

CHAIRMAN,

ttd.

Moh. -Mahfud MD.

MEMBERS,

ttd.

Achmad Sodiki

ttd.

Maria Farida Indrati

ttd.

Anwar Usman

ttd.

Muhammad Alim

ttd.

M. Akil Mochtar

ttd.

Harjono

ttd.

Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi

ttd.

Hamdan Zoelva

PANITERA REPLACEMENT,

ttd.

Cholidin Nasir

ge-break-before:always; page-break-after:always">

30

the venue of the event as defined in Section 15 of the paragraph (1) of the bill

2/2002 is in the course of the implementation of the subject matter which is contained in

Article 13 and Section 14 Act 2/2002 and also Article 16 and Section 17 of the KUHAP,

so that it is not an "unclear act that

raises legal uncertainty" as the applicant postulate.

The article is a limit to the police force to do

An arbitrary action against Indonesian citizens. If

article referred to as contrary to the 1945 Constitution and not

having a binding legal force would adversely affect not only

the applicant but also the entire Indonesian citizen. Based on

those considerations, according to the Court, the required section of testing

the constitutionality a quo is unwarranted according to the law;

[3.13] Draw, the applicant postulate that Article 18 of the paragraph (1) and verse (2)

Act 2/2002 contrary to Article 27 paragraph (1), Section 28D paragraph (1), and

Article 28G paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, for the reason that the norm

listed in Section 18 of the paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) Act 2/2002 does not clear,

so it raises legal uncertainty. Against this Court of Justice

argues that as follows:

The person who is the core of the applicant's issue regarding Article 18 of the paragraph (1) and the paragraph

(2) Act 2/2002 is regarding the phrase "acting in its own judgment"

and the phrase " a very necessary state" gives rise to obscurity so

resulting in legal uncertainty;

that Article 18 paragraph (1) Act 2/2002 is included in Chapter III of the Task