Key Benefits:
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 l s, 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 power se 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
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