is required to prove that he actually has a legal standing or

legal position, so that the submitted application can be checked,

on trial and broken up as it should have been by the Court. Constitution (Prof.

32

Dr. Jimly Asshiddiqie, S. H, Law Testing Event Act, Yarsif

Watampone, Jakarta, 2005, page 62)

2. Under the provisions of Article 51 of the paragraph (1) Act No. 24 of the Year

2003 on the Constitutional Court, the applicant is a party which

considers the rights and/or its constitutional authority be harmed by the

enactment of the Act, That is:

a. Individual citizens of Indonesia;

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

with the development of the community and the principle of the unity state

The Republic of Indonesia that is set in Undang-Undang;

c. the public or private legal entity; or,

d. State agencies.

3. According to Article 51 of the paragraph (1) the right

constitutional rights are the rights set forth in the Basic Law

The Republic of Indonesia in 1945;

4. According to the Constitutional Court ruling in Perkara Number

006 /PUUIII/2005 dated 31 May 2005 to be said there was a loss

constitutional rights or authority must be met with the terms:

a. there must be a constitutional right of the applicant given by the 1945 Constitution;

b. The applicant considers his constitutional right to be harmed by

the expiring Act of testing;

c. the loss of such constitutional rights is specific and actual or

at least as potential as it is. according to reasonable reasoning

can be certain to occur;

d. The causal link (causal verband) between the rights loss

the applicant constitutional and the enactment of the Act

is moveed the test.

e. if the request is granted, it is estimated that the right

of the constitutionality will not or no longer occur.

5. That the applicant is in this case, at the point of stating

the request is as follows:

a. That the applicant has been examined and designated as the Suspect

as well as being held by the Maluku High Prosecutor as the Investigator, and has been

33

detained in BANKRUPTCY Class II Ambon and further extended

containment by the Moluccas as the General Prosecuting with the person

same Special Criminal Assistant on behalf of the Chief

The High Prosecutor Maluku (vide repair request page 10 grains

13);

b. As a result of the implementation of Article 30 paragraph (1) the letter d Act No. 16

of 2004 on the Prosecutor of the Republic of Indonesia as well as

The explanation is not in line with the legal state principle

and provides protection and legal certainty, has made

The applicant has been harmed in its constitutional rights;

c. There has been a legal uncertainty in the case handling of the self

The applicant due to the enactment of the provisions of Article 30 paragraph (1) of the letter d

Act No. 16 of 2004 on the Republican Prosecutor

Indonesia and its Explanation, which has given legitimacy

and the authority to the Prosecutor-the prosecutors as investigators

to conduct an examination/investigation of alleged non-criminal charges

corruption, when expressly in Act Number 8 of the Year

1981 on KUHAP and in Law Number 16 Year

2004 on The Prosecutor has been given the limit that the position and

the attorney's authority is as a public prosecutor;

d. That by the provision of Article 30 (1) of the letter d

Undnag-Invite Number 16 Year 2004 on the Prosecutor of the Republic

Indonesia and its Explanation, there has been a legal sharmonization

about the legal position and the the authority of the prosecutor whether as

the investigator or as a public prosecutor;

e. That by the presence of a prosecutor's authority to be an investigator in

the handling of corruption cases, the case of human rights violations,

then it is highly objectionable, disproportionate, dissatisfied

justice, and is a violation of the against human rights;

f. The inquiry and incarceration committed against the applicant

is subjective and presumed to be invalid, contrary to the law

as well as violating the constitutional right of the applicant, resulting in

the process of eradication of criminal acts corruption is not done

34

maximum due to error in interpreting and applying Section

30 paragraph (1) letter d Act No. 16 of 2004 on

The Prosecutor of the Republic of Indonesia and its Explanation, as it occurred

multitafsir who ultimately provide legal uncertainty and

injure protection guarantees over a fair law against themselves

The applicant and the suspects are currently being examined and

detained by the Prosecutor in His authority as an Investigator and

again as a prosecutor general with the same person;

6. That the petitioner's objection to the inquiry is done

The Prosecutor a quo is essentially unreasonable because:

a. The applicant's objection is not an objection arising from

"loss" that is specific (specifically) and is not a result of

relationship causes due to (causal verband) with the Act

on the testing of the test Under Section 51 of the paragraph (1) of the MK Act, but more

due to the mandate of Section 28J paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution which reads,

" In exercising its rights and freedom, each person is mandatory

to the restrictions set forth with the Act with

intent solely to guarantee recognition as well as respect

upon the rights and liberties of others and to meet demands that

fair in accordance with moral considerations, religious values, security,

and the general order in a democratic society ". By because

that ' s a legal action done by the Prosecutor cq. The identity of the Moluccas

against the inquiry and detentions committed against

The applicant is exercised in accordance with the rules of the law-

the invitation that applies and has been in accordance with the mandate of Article 28J of the paragraph

(2) The Constitution of 1945, in which both the inquiry and the detention performed

against the applicant have been supplemented with the legal formyl conditions

the criminal event (legally according to law).

b. The applicant is already a suspect, then in accordance with

the provisions of Section 28J paragraph (2) The applicant must accept

the consequences of his cancellation of his constitutional rights by

the provisions of the criminal law and that by therefore to be

the general judicial authority (pursuant to Article 2 of the Number Act

35

46 Years 2009 on the Corruption Criminal Court) for

processing the settlement of its criminal case. Since the applicant

is designated as a suspect in the investigation stage and subsequent

held detention (currently incarceration based on the Redemption

The Ambon Corruption Criminal Court Number

03 /Pen.pid.sus/2012/PN.AB), The applicant has acknowledged his saas

the authority of the prosecutor's authority in conducting a legal action of good

is the designation and examination as a suspect or

the designation and legal action of the detention of the applicant,

and if the applicant is objecting to the legal action that

is done by Prosecutor Prosecutor, Article 79 of the KUHAP has granted

the right to the applicant as a suspect to submit the pre-

trial and to date the applicant has never submitted the pre

judicial.

The applicant in his status as the Suspect has received and

signed the News Check Event (BAP) Suspects as well as

News of the Detention Event by the suspect confirming that

The applicant does not mind being done Investigation by Prosecutor cq

The High Prosecutor of the Moluccas. Also that it turns out the extension

the detention of the applicant in his status as a suspect

has been granted with the Assignment Court of Corruption

Ambon with Redemption Number 03 /Pid.sus/2012/PN.AB

With As such, the inquiry or detention performed

The Prosecutor for the applicant is not done illegally but

has been conducted through legal proceedings and in accordance with the mandate

The Act. Thus the applicant's request is not

is the scope of the Constitutional Court's authority because

in fact there are no constitutional rights and/or constitutional authority

the applicant is subjected to the provisions of the Act and the Law. which was submitted

his pronunciation in the current Court of Justice.

c. The applicant is clearly misinterpreted and subjectively interpreted

about the detentions carried out by the prosecutor's office

is the petitioner's constitutional loss, whereas the provisions

36

Article 28J paragraph (2) of the Constitution of 1945 expressly states that the rights

of one's constitutional may be limited by the provisions of the Invite-

Invite. Further, one of the provisions of the Act

restricts constitutional rights and human rights is

the provisions contained in the criminal law. In any country in

the world, a person who commits a criminal, or disfigure

commits a criminal offence, will be limited to rights, including

rights guaranteed by its constitution. As an example of a person's right

to work, which is guaranteed by Article 28D paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution shall

be restricted if a person becomes a suspect or a defendant (for should

undergo a detention period), or if the person becomes criminal

(for having to undergo a criminal in the Penitentiary).

In this case, since the applicant is already status as

the suspect, then in accordance with the provisions of Section 28J paragraph (2) the applicant

must accept the consequences of the cancellation of the rights

the constitutionality of the The provisions of the criminal law.

Thus, the petitioners who declared the rights

his constitutionality have been harmed against the law are

the unjustistically correct. The loss of a restriction on the rights

the constitutional applicant is due to be disassigned/charged

committing a criminal offence, is something that

provisions of Article 28J paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, which in this case restriction

it was carried out by the Prosecutor as Investigator in a suspected case

a corruption of his corruption.

7. The applicant's control of the implementation of Article 30 (1) of the letter d Invite-

Invite Number 16 Year 2004 on the Prosecutor of the Republic of Indonesia

along with its Explanation, has occurred in the sharmonization of law about

the legal position and the The attorney's authority whether as an investigator or

as a public prosecutor, is an interpretation error of

The applicant on the position of the prosecutor as an investigator and a prosecutor as

The public prosecutor is the mandate of the Act. in order to attempt

the acceleration of the eradication of criminal corruption.

37

Even under Law Number 26 of the Year 2000 on

Human rights justice is also granted authority to the Prosecutor as

investigators and the public prosecutor against grave human rights violations [vide Article

21 paragraph (1) and Article 23 of the Law of Human Rights Act].

With the exit of Law No. 30 of 2003 on the Commission

Corruption Eradication as well as Act Number 16 of 2004

on the Prosecutor of the Republic of Indonesia, then the provisional provisions of the Article

284 paragraph (2) KUHAP has automatically been ruled out referring to

asas Lex Poterior Derogat Legi Priori even in Indonesia the principle "een en

ondeelbaar" or "single prosecution" is different from the various countries in the

8. As such, the applicant does not have a legal standing as

required in a material test application because there is no connection

causal (causal verband) between the discharges of the postulate constitutional rights

The applicant and the expiring Act (vide

Putermination of the Constitutional Court Number 006 /PUU-III/2005 dated 31 May

2005).

Based on the above description it is clear that there is no constitutional right

The applicant is harmed. As such, under qualification

The applicant who does not meet legal standing as a testing applicant

Act, it is already a Justice Assembly on the Court

The Constitution states the plea cannot be received (niet ontvankelijk

verklaard).

IV. THE APPLICANT ' S PLEA IS A BLURRED REQUEST (OBSCUUR LIBEL)

1. The request of the applicant in his request states that Article 30 (1)

letter d Act No. 16 of 2004 on the Prosecutor of the Republic

Indonesia and its Explanation, which authorizes

The Prosecutor to perform The investigation of certain criminal acts,

contrary to the provisions of Article 28D of the paragraph (1) and Article 28J paragraph (2)

Constitution of 1945. It was put forward by the applicant among others:

38

a. That the applicant expressed the granting of the investigation authority in

The Prosecutor at all is not in line with the state principle and

provides protection and legal certainty, has made

The applicant is harmed rights. constitutionality (vide grains 5 page 4

pleas), This is very not in line with the Act

No. 8 Year 1981 on KUHAP, Act Number 2 Year

2002 on Indonesian Police juncto Act

Number 30 Year 2002 on Eradication Of Corruption Criminal Corruption

(vide Item 8 pages 5 pleas), resulting in a multi

interpretation and sharmonization of the law about the Attorney's authority whether

as Investigator or the Public Prosecutor (vide Item 10 page 8

plea), due to the position of the Prosecutor Applicant checking the applicant

with the same person is as Investigator and also as

General charges (vide grains 13 page 10 requests) so

contrary to the principle of fair legal certainty as well as the treatment

equal before the law as guaranteed in Article 28D

paragraph (1) UUD 1945 That is, "Everyone is entitled to the recognition, guarantee,

protection, and fair legal certainty as well as the treatment that

equals the law".

b. In addition, the applicant in his application has stated that

suffered losses in the presence of Article 30 (1) of the letter d Invite-

Invite Number 16 of 2004 and its Explanation, which is

The applicant has been established as a suspect and detained by a person

who is not an authority as an investigator, but

as a public prosecutor (vide items 10 pages 8 plea).

2. Against the reason the applicant's request is above, we

argue the applicant cannot elaborate clearly and complete

what is the basis/reason of the conflict (contradiction) between Article 30

paragraph (1) d d Act Number 16 Year 2004 and

The explanation with Article 28D of the paragraph (1) and Article 28J paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

The applicant has misinterpreted the position of the inquiry and

the prosecution as well as the judicial authority of the inquiry and authority

the detention of the Prosecutor in the handling of criminal cases

39

corruption, attributed to Article 28D paragraph (1) and Article 28J paragraph (2) UUD

1945.

So it is clear that the applicant's request is the reason that

forgets even the petitioner only wants to disengage

the legal responsibility as a result of the petitioner as well as

citizens It is subject to law. The above description indicates that

the applicant's request is a blurred request (obscuur libel).

Therefore, the applicant's request must be declared unacceptable

received.

V. GOVERNMENT REBUTATION OF THE REASONS EXPRESSED BY THE APPLICANT IN HIS REQUEST

That the provisions in Article 30 of the paragraph (1) letter d Act No. 16

Year 2004 on the Prosecutor of the Republic of Indonesia and its Explanation are not

contrary to Article 1 of the paragraph (3), Article 27 paragraph (1), Article 28D paragraph (1), and

Article 28J paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, for the following reason:

1. Under Article 30 of the paragraph (1) of the Law No. 16 of the Year

2004 on the Prosecutor of the Republic of Indonesia, set that the Prosecutor

has the authority to conduct a specific criminal conduct investigation (e.g.

Act No. 26 Year 2000 on the Court of Fundamental Rights

Man and Law No. 31 of 1999 on

The eradication of Criminal Criminal Corruption as amended and

coupled with Law Number 20 of the Year 2001 on

Eradication Of Criminal Corruption Charges, Act Number 30 Years

2002 About the Corruption Eradication Commission.

2. That the prosecution's authority in the

handling of the criminal acts of corruption, cannot be released from the 5

(five) aspect of the review, i.e.:

2.1. Philosophical Aspects

That the investigation authority of corruption in Article 30 of the paragraph

(1) Act d Number 16 of 2004 and its Explanation

relates to the ideas of public justice in accelerating

The eradication of the criminal corruption that is extra ordinary crime

which may result in state or economic financial losses

40

the country, also hampering growth and development survival

national that demands high efficiency. Thus the authority

investigation and prosecution owned by the Prosecutor in the criminal act

corruption is intended to be a unity of conduct in an effort

eradication of the criminal corruption so that it is expected to be more effective

in preventing and eradiusing criminal corruption.

In conjunction with Criminal Event Law, investigation and

prosecution is a single entity called integrated

criminal justice system which is a system that does not sedate

function-cob function which results in the completion of the solution

the criminal act.

2.2. Historical Aspects

That the Prosecutor's Office has conducted an investigation of the criminal offense

corruption since the expiration of the Herziene Inlandsch Reglement (H.I. R) until

with the current one. Historically the Prosecutor's Office of Inquiry

can the Government convey it as follows:

a. After the establishment of the Union of the Republic of Indonesia,

the government issued the Emergency Law No. 1 of the Year

1951 which aimed to reorganize the court in

Indonesia. Since then, H. I. R has had an important role

since H. I. R is the only legal event law that

applies throughout Indonesia. Even the police station at the time of H. I. R

is as the assistant prosecutor that "Hulp-Magistraat" is among others

state police officers who rank police officers or maids-

assistant police inspector (helper lieutenant) to the top of the vide explanation

Article 41 figure 3 H.I.R.

b. In the time of H.I.R. the investigation was part of the prosecution.

The authority thus made the prosecutor general (attorney)

as the inquiry coordinator can even do itself

the inquiry [vide Article 38 juncto Article 39 juncto Article 46 paragraph (1)

H.I. R].

41

c. In 1961, the Law No. 15 of 1961 on

The Prosecutor set out expressly, the Prosecutor's duties and authority

in the inquiry [vide Article 2 juncto of Article 7 of the paragraph (2)].

d. In 1971, the Law No. 3 of 1971

on the Eradication of Criminal Corruption, in which it expressly

in Article 3 juncto Article 26 expressly the Attorney General as

law enforcement and prosecution the highest general lead/co-ordination

repressive policing duties/yustisiel in the investigation of the cases

corruption.

e. In 1981 with the enactment of Law No. 8 of the Year

1981 on the KUHAP, the HIR did not apply and there was a change

that was fundamental in the field of inquiry. The KUHAP governs

the investigation and subsequent investigation of the common criminal case

as specified in Article 38, Section 39, and Section 46 H.I.R.

is abolished. Nevertheless, the Attorney's authority to do

investigation into certain criminal acts such as an economic criminal offense,

corruption and subversion still remain [vide Article 284 paragraph (2) KUHAP].

f. In 1991 with the enactment of Law No. 5 of the Year

1991 on the Prosecutor of the Republic of Indonesia, it still has

the authority of the investigation against the criminal corruption.

g. Then in the development of law enforcement following the enactment

KUHAP, the inquiry authority granted to the Prosecutor

is set further by the issuer of some perinvites-

the invitation, among others:

1) Section 18 verses (3) Law No. 28 of 1999 on

The Clean and Free State of Corruption,

Kolusi and Nepotism;

2) Article 26 juncto Article 39 of the Law Number 31 Year 1999

about Eradication of Criminal Corruption as it has been

changed and augmented by Law Number 20 of the Year

2001 Eradication Of Corruption Corruption;

3) Article 11 paragraph (1) juncto Article 12 paragraph (1) Act Number

26 Years 2000 on Human Rights Injustice;

42

4) Article 44 paragraph (4) and paragraph (5) Act Number 30 of the Year

2002 on Corruption Eradication Commission;

5) Article 50 of the Law Number 30 Year 2002 on Commission

Corruption Eradication;

6) Article 30 paragraph (1) of the letter d Act No. 16 of 2004

on the Prosecutor of the Republic of Indonesia, where the Act

mandates to the Prosecutor to conduct an inquiry

against certain criminal acts between the other criminal corruption

and severe human rights violations.

7) Act No. 46 Year 2009 on Trial

Corruption Penal Code.

8) Law No. 8 of 2010 on Criminal Tindak

Money Laundering.

Next Government also delivers a picture of data

handling the eradication of the criminal corruption carried out

The Prosecutor, as follows:

a. The recapitulation of the criminal acts of corruption that its investigation

carried out the Prosecutor's and has been broken up by the Court of the period

in 2008 until 2011, with the details as

following:

2008: 1,348 Case;

Year 2009: 1,609 cases;

2010: 2,315 cases;

2011: 1,729 cases;

From the Prosecutor's data, state financial rescue through

The investigation of corruption cases throughout 2011 was $($). 173,454,832,552,-(one hundred seventy-three billion four hundred

fifty-four million eight hundred thirty-two thousand five hundred.

fifty-two rupiah) and US$ 6,760.69,-(six thousand seven hundred

sixty dollars sixty dollars. nine cents) as well as the amount of Money

The paid replacement amounted to Rp. 22.244,653,024.81,-(two

twenty two billion two hundred and forty-four million six hundred

43

fifty-three thousand twenty-four rupiah eighty-one

cents).

While from the Swadaya Society (NGO) activist

anti corruption that data and its activities in

participate in it as part of the public doing

social control of the government and as an integral part

of the law enforcement monitoring system in particular in the field

of criminal corruption, that of the results of the research possessed

Indonesian Corruption Watch (ICW) 2011 mentioned

that Throughout all of 2011 Indonesia Attorney's entire Indonesia

was ranked first in treatment case

criminal corruption as well as state financial rescue.

(http://www.detiknews.com/read/2012/02/06/052001/1834712/10/k

ejaksaan-most-moncer-case-corruption-during-year-

2011)

From The ICW's statement, which is a form of recognition of

a Swadaya Society institution against the presence of

the Prosecutor's authority and prosecution authority

in the case of accelerated handling and resolution of the case.

a criminal corruption act, and as a form of recognition of

Prosecutor's corruption success in the

entire Indonesia.

b. Case of criminal corruption that stands out and draws attention

society based on the results of the Prosecutor's investigation and has

has a fixed legal force (in kracht), among others:

1) Corruption Felony Case. Export of fictitious Rice, Gratification

on behalf of Terconvict Widjanarko Puspoyo (Former Head

BULOG);

2) Felony Corruption Charges of Fictitious Credit at the Bank

BRI Sharia in the name of Terpenal Asri Ulia (Ex-Head

Branch of the BRI Shariah Bank Attack);

44

3) Criminal Corruption Charges Falsifying Travel Documents

The Service on behalf of the criminal Ade Wismar (former Bureau Chief

Finance Ministry Of Foreign Affairs);

4) Criminal Commisation Project Water Project Resources and

Irrigation Sector Management (WISMP) on the Directorate

The management of the Water Resources on behalf of the Criminal DR.

Giofanni Gondolfi.

The above description indicates that the Prosecutor's authority to

carry out the investigation and prosecution of the case

the criminal corruption has brought the benefit to the eradication effort

corruption, which is an important effort in the objectives

national Indonesian state as stated in paragraph

4th Opening of the 1945 Constitution. On the other hand even the Supreme Court

The Republic of Indonesia has decided on corruption that

its investigation is carried out by the Prosecutor in all of Indonesia.

2.3. Sociological aspect.

That up to this moment society still gives confidence and

put very big expectations to the Prosecutor as an institution

the government is responsible for dealing with criminal corruption, even every

The Attorney General and the Attorney General's Day and the State Attorney in

all of Indonesia received a protest from the public to sue and

encourage the Prosecutor to quickly resolve and resolve

the case of the affair criminal corruption of good being carried out by executive officials,

legislative and The judiciary and the other perpetrators of corruption. Even the role and

society in the eradication of the criminal corruption can also be seen

from the investigation conducted over reports of public complaints to

Prosecutors (both at the center and in the area).

2.4. Strategic environment aspect.

That is currently the system specialization function that separates the investigation and

the prosecution is already left of the development of society dynamics, in

where the national and global strategic demands are more Depaning

problem approach, and currently the eradication of international corruption

has always laid the Attorney General as leading sector. An important role for the D.A.

45

Great as leading sector, referring to the Guidelines on the Role of

the meeting, Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime

and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, 27 August to 7 September 1990,

U.N. Doc. /CONF.144/28/Rev. l at 189 (1990), where it is mentioned that:

" Shall perform an active role in criminal proceedings, including

institution of prosecution and, where authorized by law or consistent. with

local practice, in the investigation of crime, supervision over the legality of

these investigations, supervision of the execution of court decisions and the

exercise of other functions as It's a public interest. "

Which may be translated as follows:

" The prosecution should carry out an active role in criminal cases,

including holding prosecutions as well as in terms of being authorized by

Act or according to Local practice, investigation

crime, supervising the investigation of the investigation, supervising execution

court rulings and in carrying out other functions as

advocate of public interest ".

Next in the United Nations Congress termination of the outline of the role

General Prosecuting (United Nations Guidelines on the Role of Importance),

Article 15 says:

" shall we give due attention to the party? prosecutions of crimes comings

by public officials, especially corruption, abuse of power, grave of violations

of human rights and other crimes recognized by international law and, where

authorized by law or a consistence with local practice, investigations of such

offences "

Which can be translated as follows:

" The general prosecution pays attention to unwitting delik-delik

done by public officials, in particular corruption, abuse

authority, grave misconduct against human rights and delik-delik

other recognized by the International Law and, if passed by law or

in accordance with local practice, bewitch such delicings ".

In addition to the eradication of corruption, the Kolusi, and

Nepotism, the representatives of the people (MPR/DPR), and the "

46

with the President of the Republic of Indonesia has issued a policy

handling of KKN eradication, among other things:

a. TAP MPR Number XI/MPR/1998 about the State of the Union

Clean and Free of KKN.

b. Presidential directive No. 30 of 1998 dated December 2, 1998

on the Eradication of KKN containing, the President instructed

to the Attorney General for: first immediately take action

proactive, effective and efficient in Eradicate Corruption, Kolusi, and

Nepotism in order to improve and improve implementation

national development in order to form a national goal

the Indonesian nation.

c. Presidential directive No. 5 of 2004 on Acceleration

Corruption Eradication, directed amongst others to the Prosecutor

The Great Republic of Indonesia, for:

1) Optimizing the investigation efforts and prosecution

against criminal corruption to punish the perpetrator and

save the state money.

2) Preventing and granting unequivocal sanctions against

the misuse of the authority carried out by the Prosecutor

General in order of law enforcement.

3) Improving cooperation with the Republican State Police

Indonesia, Financial and Financial Supervising Board, Center

Financial Transaction Reporting and Analysis, and State Institutions

related to law enforcement efforts of return

state financial losses due to the followup criminal corruption.

d. 2011 Presidential Decree No. 9 of the Action Plan

National Prevention and Corruption Eradication of 2011 and

Presidential Instruction No. 17 of 2011 on Prevention of Prevention

and Corruption Eradication of 2012, which at its core

instruct among others to the Attorney General to take

steps required according to task, function and authority

respectively in order of acceleration acceleration and

the eradication Corruption.

47

2.5. Yuridis aspect

That the Prosecutor's investigation authority is set up in some provisions

as follows:

a. Article 38 paragraph (1) Herzien Inlandsch Reglement (H.I.R.):

" The business of conducting police officers on the Indonesian nation and nation

the foreign is required to the Chief Prosecutor at the Court of State;

as well as to the The prosecutors were seconded to him, each

for the area where he was appointed; they were obliged to run

command, which is connected to it was ordered to him by

The Prosecutor's Chief on Supreme Court or by the Attorney General ".

b. Section 2 of the paragraph (2) of the Law No. 15 Year 1961 of

The Terms of the Prosecutor's Office of the Republic of Indonesia or

The Pokok Prosecutor Act (UUPK):

" conduct advanced inquiry into crime and breach.

as well as supervising and coordinating investigator tools according to

provisions in the penal code law and

other state regulations ".

c. Article 27 paragraph (1) of the letter d Act No. 5 of 1991 on

The Prosecutor of the Republic of Indonesia:

" equip certain case files and for that to do

additional checks before it is devolve to the court