5

6. That the submission of this test is to carry out

the constitutional right of the applicant's right to be established by the state

the law as mandated by Article 1 of the paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution.

7. That if the applicant's wish is granted then the loss

the constitutionality of the Applicant will not or no longer occur.

8. That is because it is clear that the applicant is a party that

has a constitutional interest and constitutional interest to

submit this request.

III. THE SUBJECT OF THE MATTER IS 6. That Article 1 paragraph (3) of the Constitution of 1945 clearly reads that the country

Indonesia is a legal country.

7. That one of the main features of the legal state is the existence of certainty

the law.

8. That the absence of legal certainty will make the enforcement action

the law loses its legitimacy, so the legal system will not be

running.

9. That the legal certainty requires that there is a written law that

is firm and clear primarily concerned with the granting of authority to

law enforcement institutions.

10.That one of the authority of law enforcement institutions is very clear.

important is the authority to conduct an inquiry.

11.That Section 6 of the paragraph (1) letter of Law Number 8 of 1981 (Book of Invite-

invite the Penal Event Law /KUHAP) reads:

" Investigators are: state police officials Republic of Indonesia "

12.That Article 7 of the paragraph (1) Act No. 8 of 1981 reads;

Investigators as referred to in Section 6 of the paragraph (1) of the letter a due to its obligation:

a. received an Iaporan or a complaint from a person about the event

criminal;

b. conducted the first act at the time at the scene;

6

c. ordered to stop a suspect and check the identification tag

self suspect;

d. making arrests, detentions, shakedown and foreclosure;

e. conduct checkup and seizure of mail;

f. take fingerprints and photograph an;

g. call people to be heard and checked as suspects or

witnesses;

h. Bring the necessary experts in connection with

case check;

i. hold a termination of the inquiry;

j. Held another act according to the law in charge

13.That in 2002 it was promulred Law No. 30 of 2002 on

The Commission on Eradication Of The Corruption Criminal Corruption.

14.That Article 50 verse (3) Law Number 30 Year 2002 about the Commission

The Eradication of Criminal Corruption reads:

" In terms of the Corruption Eradication Commission it has started to do

The inquiry as referred to in paragraph (1), police or prosecutor

Authorized again doing the investigation "

15.That the phrase " police or The prosecutor has no authority to do

The investigation " does not clearly formulate the investigation authority that

is set in the Act which the police originally owned

and the prosecutor's office is missing. or expunged after the start of the KPK

conduct the investigation. That this obscurity is a legal fact

that we can see in the case of a corruption investigation

A driver's license simulator where the Polri's institution, not just a proven ocnum

is conducting a case of inquiry which already have been alerted to the KPK because according to

they are authorized their investigation is set in the KUHAP.

16.That vagueness arising from the phrase "police or prosecutor

is not authorized to again do the investigation" poses

legal uncertainty as it occurs in a "double inquiry" in

case The alleged corruption of the procurement of driving licence (SIM) simulators simulators a driver's license (SIM)

which is currently being preoccupied simultaneously by the Republican Police

Indonesia (Polri) and the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK).

7

Even in the separately conducted investigation, Polri

and KPK set a similar suspect.

17.That "double inquiry" in the case of alleged corruption procurement

SIM simulator arise because both KPK and Polri both felt

had the right to investigate the matter.

18.That on Friday 3 August 2012 Head of the Reserse Agency and

Criminal (Kabarescream) Mabes Polri Commissioner General of Police Sutarman

broadly stated that Polri will keep the case

alleged The corruption of the procurement of SIM simulators is based on

provisions Act No. 8 of 1981 (KUHAP).

19.That a double investigation conducted by Polri and KPK in the case

same and with the same suspect clearly contradictory to

asas the legal certainty is due to be unclear on the basis of the investigation

that Where the trial of the case will be

takes place.

20.That a double inquiry as occurred in the alleged corruption case

procuring the SIM simulator is highly likely to have been frequent and will continue

happening again in other corruption cases.

21.That Legal uncertainty arises as a result of the vagueness of the phrase "policing

or the prosecutor is no longer authorized to do the investigation" and by

because it is clear that the phrase " police or prosecutor is not authorized

again do The investigation "as long as it is not defined," authority

the police force or the prosecutor's office for conduct an inquiry in the case

as set out in an Act other than the Act

this is abolished " contrary to Article 1 of the paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution.

22.That should be the phrase "the police or the prosecutor is not authorized and will continue to disrupt the program eradication program

criminal corruption and has thus been or at least potentially

blocking the The applicant to obtain his constitutional right is:

-The right to a job and a decent livelihood as set

in Article 27 of the paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. More detail, existence

The section being tested in case a quo has resulted in

the delay in the eradication of corruption, if so then the country

would be poor and in a poor country of ability society

to use the advocate services is ensured to be lower and para

The applicant is determined to be increasingly difficult to obtain a client.

-The right to develop yourself through the fulfillment of basic needs

as set in Article 28C paragraph (1) of the Constitution of 1945. More

details, the existence of the articles being tested in trosecutors are under the Act

8

others in addition to Law No. 30 of 2002 have the authority to

conduct an investigation of criminal corruption charges.

IV. EVIDENCE TOOLS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT

That in the judicial review a quo, the petitioners submitted the tool-

the evidence tool, among other things: (i) the written proof, (ii) the witness, expert and para

The applicant which will be present in the trial. Therefore, the evidence tools

submitted by the applicant have been in accordance with Article 36 juncto Article 42 of the Act

Number 24 of 2003.

V. PETITUM

Based on the entire description above, the petitioners request to the Assembly of Judges

The Constitutional Court to prosecute the application of Article 50 verse (3)

Act Number 30 of 2002 with amar verdict Plea Testing

Act a quo as follows:

1. Accept and grant the entire request of the Act

which is submitted by the Applicant;

2. Declaring Article 50 paragraph (3) of the Law No. 30 Year 2002 on the Commission

The Eradication of the Criminal Code of Corruption along the phrase "police or prosecutor no longer authorized to investigate" contrary to Article 1 of the paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution And it has no binding force as long as it does not. "the authority of the police or the prosecutor's authority to conduct an investigation in such cases as set in

Act other than this Act is abolished".

3. Ordered an amar ruling of the Assembly of Justice of this Constitutional Court

to be loaded in State News in the slowest term of thirty

(30) business days since the verdict was read;

Or if the Assembly of Judges of the Constitution have another opinion on the matter

aquo please be given a seadil-adied verdict (ex aequo et bono).

[2.2] weighed that to prove its control, the petitioners

submitted a letter-proof tool that was given a proof of P-1 proof up to

the P-4 evidence as follows:

1. Proof of P-1 Photocopy of the Applicant's Population Card;

9

2. Evidence P-2 Photocopied Act No. 30 of 2001 on

Commission on Eradication Of Criminal Corruption;

3. Evidence P-3 Photocopied Act No. 8 of 1981 on

The Law of the Criminal Event Act;

4. Proof of P-4 Photocopy of the Basic Law of 1945.

In addition, the petitioners also filed an expert on the name of Didi Sunardi which had been heard of in the October 2, 2012 trial

that in the first place described things as follows:

Expert Didi Sunardi

The criminal justice law is all the commandments and prohibitive prohibitive that

is held by the state and threatened with a criminal. Whoever

does not comply with all the rules that define the terms

for the consequences of that law and to all rules for rationing and

run the criminal;

The criminal Tindak is a criminal. The act of man is active or passive. Then banned.

and threatened by the Law, then against the law,

then the one who acts can be blamed, then who

the last person who can do it Accounted for;

Alas for legality, which is to be nullum delictum, nulla poena sine praevia lege

poenali (no deed can be convicted if no Invite-

Invite set it) is set in Article 1 of the paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code regarding

The Act must be written, should not apply asas the retroactive

(retroactive), and the Act should not be analogs.

The Departure and Investigators are governed in Article 1 of the paragraph (1) of the Penal Code and the Act

No. 8 Tahun1981 in which the Police or certain civil officials are

is given special authority by the Act to conduct an inquiry;

The Exact Is There asas lex specialis derogat lex generalis, i.e. Act

special defeat of the Act in Section 63 paragraph (2)

KUHP and Article 103 of the Criminal Code;

10

The case of the Speciency Set-up is also in Chapter II Act No. 30 Year

2002 regarding the task, authority, obligation;

[2.3] Draw that against the applicant, Government

deliver opening statement orally in the trial of date 2

October 2012 and the written caption received at the Court of Justice

on November 8, 2012, which at the point stated things as

below:

I. ABOUT THE SUBJECT OF THE APPLICANT

1. That according to the applicant register 80 /PUU-X/2012 Article 50 verse (3) of the Act

KPK in particular the phrase ' police or the prosecutor is not authorized anymore

does the inquiry "" does not clearly formulate the authority

which is the investigation which Originally owned by the Police and the Prosecutor

to be removed after the KPK began its investigation of the crimes

corruption, and hence the applicant may inflict

the uncertainty of the law as occurring in the A double investigation of the alleged

corruption simulator driver's license. So that Article 50 paragraph (3) of the KPK bill along the phrase

' Police or the Prosecutor is not authorized to conduct the investigation "no

has the power of the law binding to the extent unimpeached" authority

the police and the prosecutor for the conduct an inquiry in the case

such as set in an Act other than the Act

this is abolished ";

2. According to the applicant Case Number 81 /PUU-X/2012 authority

the investigation takeover of the perpetrator of the criminal corruption that

is being carried out by the Police or the Prosecutor's cause

there is an overlap the authority and conflict between the enforcement agencies

laws so that Section 8 (1), paragraph (2), paragraph (3), paragraph (4), paragraph (4) and Section 50

paragraph (1), paragraph (2), paragraph (3), paragraph (4), paragraph (4), paragraph (4) of the Commission

Eradication of Penal Code Corruption has no basis of constitutionality;

II. ABOUT THE LEGAL STANDING (LEGAL STANDING) THE PETITIONERS

In accordance with the provisions of Article 51 of the paragraph (1) Act Number 24

of 2003 on the Constitutional Court as amended by

Act Number 8 In 2011, it was announced that the applicant was the party

11

which considers the rights and laity of the constitutional authority be harmed by

the enactment of the Act, i.e.:

a. Individual citizens of Indonesia;

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

with the development of the community and the principle of the Republic of the Republic of the Republic

Indonesia that is governed in the promulcity;

c. the public or private legal entity; or

d. country institutions.

The above provisions are expressed in its explanation, that the

"constitutional right" is the rights that are governed in the Basic Law

The Republic of Indonesia of Indonesia Year 1945, then first. must explain

and prove:

a. Qualify for the a quo as referred to in Article 51

paragraph (1) of the Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court;

b. The rights and/or its constitutional authority in the qualifying referred to which

is considered to have been harmed by the enactment of the tested Act;

c. Rights and/or constitutional authority of the applicant as a result of

the enactmentp>

eradication, no longer can be done normally but prosecuted

outstanding ways.

b. That the commitment of the Indonesian nation to eradicate criminal acts

corruption is so strong. This is reflected in the Assembly's provisions

The People's Consultative Number XI/MPR/1998 on the Hosting

The Clean and Free State of Corruption, Kolusi, and Nepotism that

then proportionally the system prevention and eradication

derived in the form Act Number 28 of 1999 on

The State Smuggling To Clean and Free of Corruption, Kolusi,

and the Nepotism juncto Act No. 31 of 1999 about

The eradication of the Corruption Criminal Corruption as amended

with Bill Number 20, 2001.

c. That further Article 43 of the Law No. 31 Year 1999

on the Eradication of the Corruption Penal Code has been mandated

to form a special body that has the authority

wide, independent, and free of any power in the effort

eradication of the criminal corruption that its implementation is done

optimally, intensively, effective, professional, and continuous.

The special agency is next called the Commission Eradication

Corruption that has tasks as set out in Section 6

The KPK Act, which is as follows:

1. Coordinate with authorized agencies performing

eradication of criminal corruption;

2. Supervision of the agency authorized to do

the eradication of criminal corruption;

3. Conduct investigation, investigation, investigation, and prosecution

against the criminal corruption charges;

4. Committing acts of criminal corruption prevention; and

5. Conducting a monitor against the holding of state government.

d. That in carrying out supervision authority against agency

which is authorized to eradication of criminal corruption and

agencies that carry out public service, the Eradication Commission

The corruption of the authorities takes over The investigation or prosecution of

19

A criminal corruption offender being committed by the police force or

the prosecutor.

e. That the authority of the investigation or prosecution of

the perpetrator of the criminal corruption being committed by the Police or

The Prosecutor, not to be understood that the position of the police agency

and the Prosecutor's Office are in the under the auspices of the Eradication Commission

Corruption because the takeover is not done at any

the investigation and prosecution being carried out by the Police or

The Prosecutor. The corruption of such corruption must be for the reason

regulated in Article 9 of the KPK Act of retrieval

investigation and prosecution as referred to in Article 8

conducted by the Corruption Eradication Commission with reason:

1. Public report on criminal corruption is not

actionable;

2. Protracted corruption handling process or

is delayed for no reason to be accounted for;

3. The handling of criminal corruption is intended to protect the perpetrator

a true criminal corruption;

4. The handling of criminal corruption contains an element of corruption;

5. Impediment handling of criminal corruption due to interference

of executive, judicial, or legislative, or;

6. Other circumstances under the police or

Prosecutor, mishandling of criminal corruption are difficult to implement

well and be accounted for.

II. Testing of Article 50 of the KPK Act

a. That before the creation of the Corruption Eradication Commission,

the authority to conduct investigations, investigation, and prosecution

in the eradication of criminal corruption has been implemented by

various institutions such as the Prosecutor's Office. And police. In regard to that

, then the regulatory arrangement of the Corruption Eradication Commission

in Act No. 30 of 2002 was carefully conducted-

the heart so that there would be no overlap of authority with the

That instance.

20

b. That the provisions set out in the KPK Act in particular

in regarding the investigation, inquiry, and prosecution are the rules

that is lex specialis derogat lex generalis of the existing provisions

inside The Criminal Code and the Prosecutor ' s Act.

c. That one of the specificity of the KPK Act is seen in Article

11 of the KPK Act which clearly rules about

the authority of the Corruption Eradication Commission to do

investigation, investigation, and prosecution against the corruption of corruption

which:

1. It involves the law enforcement apparatus, state organizers, and

others who have anything to do with the corruption crimes that

are committed by law enforcement officials or state organizers.

2. Getting attention that is unsettling of society and/or

3. It concerns the loss of state peling a little Rp.1 billion.

d. That the regulatory setting of the Corruption Eradication Commission to

conduct an investigation and investigation of the criminal act

as referred to in Article 11 of the KPK Act does

contain the meaning that the KPK is monopolizing the task and authority

investigation, investigation, and prosecution of criminal corruption charges

in question. However, other agencies such as the Police and the Prosecutor

under Law No. 8 of 1981

on the Criminal Code and the Prosecutor's Act can do

the duty and authority in performing investigation, investigation,

and prosecution.

e. That in order to avoid the overlap of authority between the Police

or the Prosecutor with the KPK, in particular in terms of authority

the investigation of an alleged similar criminal corruption,

then in Article 50 of the Act The KPK is already very clearly set

things as follows.

1. Against an undone criminal corruption

investigation by the KPK, but the case has been conducted

the investigation by the Police and the Prosecutor, then the KPK has

authority, coordination, and supervision of the The investigation that

has been performed by the Police or the Prosecutor. It's set.

21

in Section 50 of the paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of the KPK Act

reads as follows.

" (1) In the case of a criminal corruption Commission corruption

The corruption has not yet carried out the investigation of the case.

it has been alerted by the Police or

The agencies are required to notify the Commission

The slowest 14-day Corruption Eradication of Corruption is calculated

from the date of the commencement of the inquiry. "

"(2) The investigation conducted by the Police or the Prosecutor

as referred to in paragraph (1) is mandatory coordination

constantly with the Corruption Eradication Commission."

2. In the case of the KPK has begun to investig the caption as follows.

I. Testing of Article 8 paragraph (2), paragraph (3), paragraph (4) of the KPK Act

a. Widespread and systematic corruption is also the

violation of social rights and economic rights of the public,

and therefore corruption crimes can no longer be classed as

ordinary crimes. but it has become an extraordinary crime

(extra ordinary crime). And so is it in a precautionary effort and

18

25

constitutionality as referred to in Article 51 of the paragraph (1) MK Act 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 is considered

aggrieved by the enactment of the testing Act;

c. the constitutional loss must be specific (special) and actual or

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

will occur;

d. the presence of causal relationships (causal verband) between the intended losses

and the expiring of the testing Act;

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

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

[3.7] Draw that based on the description as it is on

paragraph [3.5] and paragraph [3.6] above, subsequently the Court will consider regarding the legal position (legal standing) the applicant.

At the point of the applicant postulate as a person of the citizens

Indonesia who is a professional advocate and disadvantaged rights

The constitutionality due to the provisions of the Act being tested

in the case of a quo resulting in the use of the Shopping Revenue Budget

State (APBN) which should be used for supporting activities and

realizing Indonesia as a legal state as mandated by Article 1

paragraph (3) of the Constitution of 1945, it is used for investigative activities performed

the police and/or the prosecutor's office in the case of which the Commission is already bewitched.

Corruption Eradication (KPK) potentially damaging legal certainty and

legal order;

[3.8] weighed that upon divorcating the submission document

pleas and evidence submitted by the petitioners, as well as the facts revealed

in the trial, the Court found the fact that the The applicant is

a citizen of Indonesia (vide photocopy of P-1 is a Population Card

each on behalf of the applicant is published by the Bekasi City government,

Central Jakarta City, and the City of Depok) in the profession. as an advocate;

26

[3.9] weighed that based on such matters above, the Court

assessed, the applicant as a citizen of Indonesia professed as

advocate has the right to apply for testing. Norm Invite-

Invite a quo against UUD 1945. The applicant has a constitutional right

which is set in the 1945 Constitution, i.e. the rights of citizens according to the principle

the state of the law. According to the Court, under the control of the applicant in

the application, there is a potential loss of the Applicant by force

the phrase " The police or the prosecutor is no longer authorized to conduct the investigation

in Article 50 of the paragraph (3) of the 30/2002 Act, i.e. the absence of any legal certainty that

makes the act of law enforcement losing legitimacy, so the legal system

not running.

Based on those considerations, according to the Court, the applicant

eligible legal standing (legal standing) to submit

a testing application of a quo;

[3.10] Weighing that by because the Court of Justice is prosecuting

plea a quo, and the applicant has a legal standing (legal

standing) to apply for a quo, next to the Court

consider the subject;

The subject of the plea

[3.11] Weighing that the subject matter of the petitioners is testing

the constitutionality of the phrase " The police or the prosecutor is no longer authorized to do

investigation"in Article 50 of the paragraph (3) of the 30/2002 Act in which he further stated,

"In terms of the Corruption Eradication Commission has already begun to conduct a investigation

as referred to in paragraph (1), the police or the prosecutor is not authorized

again conduct an inquiry " against Section 1 of the paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution which

states," The State of Indonesia is the state of the law ";

[3.12] A draw that the Applicant considers Article 50 of the paragraph (3) of the Act

30/2002 throughout the phrase"policing or the prosecutor is not authorized anymore

does The inquiry"contrary to Article 1 of the paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution and not

has a binding force as long as it is not understood"the authority of the police or

27

The prosecutor's attorney for the inquiry in the case as

is set in the Act other than this Act was abolished";

Court opinion

[3.13] Draw that after the Court check with the saksama

pleas of the applicant, the statement of the Government, the caption of the House,

expert statements from the petitioners and the evidence written by the petitioners, as well as

the facts revealed in the trial, the Court of Justice. argued as

The following:

[3.14] A draw that Article 50 paragraph (3) The 30/2002 Act has also been mohoned

testing its constitutionality and breaking up in the Putermination Number 81 /PUU-

X/2012, dated October 23, 2012, with amar ruling, "Declared

Rejected the applicant's plea for entirety of";

[3.15] Draws That Termination Number 81 /PUU-X/2012 has stated

in its legal consideration among others:

"Draw that against the Applicant's postulation that the occurrence of dualism in The applicant's handling of the criminal corruption is postured that the presence of dualism It is detrimental to the constitutional right of the advocate because the applicant faces uncertainty and injustice in the handling of corruption, according to the Court, although there is a dualism, but both are not overlapping due to each institution. It can still exercise its authority and to eliminate the uncertainty and injustice of the KPK is given special authority to conduct supervision and coordination. In this connection, the basis of which is the basis is the relationship between lex specialis and lex generalis. The applicant is thus unwarranted according to the law";

[3.16] A draw that in the request of Number 81 /PUU-X/2012,

as it is above, it has been used Article 1 of the paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution as

one of the basic test constitutionality testing of the application, so consideration

the Court in the Discourse of Number 81 /PUU-X/2012 mutatis mutandis

being considered in the a quo ruling;

[3.17] Weighing that based on the entire consideration is above,

Court valuing, the norm and the charge material in the 1945 Constitution that was made

the base testing base Number 81 /PUU-X/2012 on its nature is the same as