Key Benefits:
Article 33 of the 32/2004 Act reads:
(1) The County Chief and/or the deputy head of the area temporarily suspended
as referred to in Article 30 of the paragraph (1), Section 31 of the paragraph (1), and the Article
32 paragraph (5) after going through the judicial process it turned out to be found not guilty
based on the court ruling that has gained the legal power
remains, at least 30 (thirty) the day the President has rehabilitated and
reactivating the head of the region and/or deputy head of the region
is concerned until the end of his term.
(2) If the Regional Chief and/or the deputy head of the area are dismissed
while as referred to by the paragraph (1) has ended the term
His post, the President has rehabilitated and did not activate it
return.
5
(3) Terms of implementation of the provisions as referred to in Section 30,
Section 31, and Section 32 are governed in the Government Regulation.
Where Article 244 Act 8/1981 juncto Section 259 Act 8/1981 remains applied
against a court ruling that declared a local chief and/or
the deputy head of the area by the court was declared free or found not guilty of the Public Prosecutor's indictment attributed to Article 30 and Article 31, then should Article 33 paragraph (1) Act 32/2004 may remain applied
Even the Attorney General filed a cassation against the free ruling
that. However, the practice during this time showed that the Prosecutor General
filed the case against the free verdict and resulted in the head of the area
or the deputy head of the non-active area could not be reinstated, including
in case of Mochtar Zakaria [Evidence P-11, -11a]. The fact of the law is clear
poses a constitutional loss for the applicant, so the Court must
declare the provisions of Article 244 and Section 259 Act 8/1981 in line with the Constitution
1945 even the Attorney General Prosecuting Cassation. against the verdict
free and therefore Article 244 and Section 259 Act 8/1981 remains the force
binding laws.
II.3. Related to the terms of the "individual citizen of Indonesia" as set out in Article 51 of the paragraph (1) The letter e Law Number 24 of 2003, then the applicant
is an Indonesian citizen who It resides in the Regency
East Lampung, Lampung Province [Evidence P-6], where the applicant (Hi. Satono,
S.P., S.H.) was appointed as the Regent of the East Lampung by Decision
Minister of the Interior No. 131.18-545 Year 2010 dated 18 August 2010
[Evidence P-7] and has been designated as the Regent of the Selected East Lampung Period
2010-2015 based on Lampung Regency Election Commission Decision
East Number 17 of 2010 dated 5 July 2010.
The applicant is then set to be designated as the Regent of the East Lampung
based on the Decree of the Minister of the Interior No. 131.18-395 Year 2011
dated 26 May 2011 [Evidence P-8] due to be submitted to the Tanjung Negeri Court
Coral [Number 304 /PID.SUS/2011/PN.TK, Evidence P-9] and on have been disconnected
with amar ruling [vide Evidence P-9] as follows:
PROSECUTE 1. Refusing to object/ecception of the defendant Hi's Law Advisor. Satono, S.H., S.P.
Bin Hi. Darmo Susiswo;
6
2. Stating that the defendant Hi. Satono, S.H., S.P. Bin Hi. Darmo Susiswo,
is not legally proven and guilty of committing a criminal offence
as he is not dismayed to him in Primair, Subsidair
charges and more Subsidair charges;
3. Release the defendant Hi. Satono, S.H., S.P. Bin Hi. Darmo Susiswo, that
by hence of Primair charges, Subsidair or more indictments
Subsidair;
4. Restore the defendant ' s rights in the ability, position and property as well as
his dignity;
5. Establish that evidence items as such in the evidence
this case and have been given No. 1 to Number 38 and any letter that
is being added by the Law Advisor who was given Number 1 to No.
37 during the This trial, all remains attached in the case
this;
6. Charge a case against the State;
Even if it has been broken free by the Cape Coral State Court [vide Evidence
P-9], the Minister of the Interior remains unable to recover the " defendant's right in
ability, position and the estate and its dignity " to the applicant to
re-office as the Regent of the East Lampung as a result of the Prosecutor
General filed a case against the Tanjung Negeri Court Decision
Coral a quo [Evidence P-10]. The Public Prosecutor filed a cassation against
The applicant ' s free verdict due to broadcast, among other things, on the provisions of Article
244 and Section 259 Act 8/1981. With a statement of cassation by the Prosecutor
General Prosecution, then the Minister of the Interior has not been able to reactivate
The applicant as the Regent of the East Lampung as referred to as Article 33 of the paragraph
(1) juncto of Article 30 and Section 31 Law 32/2004. Due to the application
Section 244 and Section 259 of the Act 8/1981 are incorrect and not under the law,
then the applicant has experienced a constitutional loss in its debate
the restoration of the office of Applicant as a Regent of Lampung East. As such,
The applicant has a legal standing (legal standing) to apply for testing
the a quo legislation.
III. THE REASON FOR FILING A BILL
III.1. That The applicant has begun to suffer constitutional losses since the Minister of the Interior dismissed while the Applicant as Regent of Lampung
7
East after the Prosecutor submitted the case file to the Tanjung Negeri Court
Coral [vide Evidence P-9] is set in the provisions of Article 31 juncto Article 30 Act
32/2004.
That the applicant assessees the temporary dismissal as the Regent of Lampung
East is as a form of punishment before the deposition of the court ruling
that examined the case that it is not disappointing to the applicant.
The applicant assessees a temporary stop as the Regent of the East Lampung
gives birth to one legal uncertainty for the applicant to the contrary to
the soul and the charge of Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.
III.2. That the provisions of Article 31 of the paragraph (1) Act 32/2004 are punishments dropped without going t>
The president without going through DPRD proposal if proven to be a criminal offense
as referred to in paragraph (1) based on a court ruling that
has obtained a fixed legal force.
Article 31 Act 32/2004 reads:
(1) The Regional Chief and/or the deputy head of the area is temporarily terminated by
President without going through the DPRD proposal for being charged with conduct
criminal corruption, criminal terrorism, macar, and/or criminal conduct
against state security.
(2) Regional Chief and/or deputy regional head dismissed temporarily by
President without going through the DPRD proposal for being proven to be doing macar
and/or any other actions that split the Republic of the Republic State
Indonesia expressed by the Court ruling that has
acquir Year 1981 on Criminal Event Law is contrary to the Basic Law of the State Republic of Indonesia in 1945;
5. Stating that Article 259 of the Act No. 8 of 1981 on
the law of the Criminal Event concerning the phrase "... can be submitted one request
the case by the Attorney General" if not interpreted as " ... can be submitted one time
free, then Article 259 Act No. 8 of 1981 on Law
The Criminal Event does not have a binding legal force; 6. Deciding and stating that Article 33 of the paragraph (1) Act Number
32 Year 2004 on the Government of the Regions regarding the phrase "... is based
the court ruling that has gained the power of the law remains, ..." if not interpreted as "...based on a court ruling that has obtained the legal power of fixed, ... including a free ruling", then Article 33 of the paragraph (1) Act No. 32 of 2004 on Governance
Area contrary to the Basic Law of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945;
7. It is determined that Article 33 of the paragraph (1) of the Law No. 32 of 2004
on the Local Government of the phrase "... based on the court ruling
which has gained the legal power of fixed, ..." if not interpreted as "... based on the court ruling that has gained the power
the law remains, ... including the free verdict", then Article 33 of the paragraph (1) Invite-
11
Invite Number 32 of 2004 on the Local Government contrary to the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945;
8. Ordering the loading of this ruling in the News of the Republic of Indonesia
as it should.
Or if the Constitutional Court argues otherwise, the applicant please the verdict
as well as the fair.
[2.2] weighed that in order to prove its control, the applicant
submitted a letter of letter proof/writing that was given a proof of P-1 proof up to
P-11a as follows:
1. Proof of P-1: Photocopy Act No. 32 of 2004 on
Local Government;
2. Evidence P-2: Photocopied Act No. 8 of 1981 on Law
Criminal Event;
3. Proof P-3: Photocopy of the State Basic Law of the Republic of Indonesia
Year 1945;
4. Evidence P-4: Photocopy Act No. 24 of 2003 on
Constitutional Court;
5. Evidence P-5: Photocopy Act No. 8 of 2011 on
Changes to the Law Number 24 of 2003
about the Constitutional Court;
6. Evidence P-6: Photocopy Card Population Top Hi. Satono;
7. Evidence P-7: Photocopy of the Home Minister's Decree Number 131.18-545
Year 2010, August 18, 2010;
8. Evidence P-8: Photocopy of the Home Minister's Decree Number 131.18-395
In 2011, May 26, 2011;
9. Evidence P-9: Photocopy of the Cape Coral State Court Quotation
No. 304 /PID.SUS/2011/PN.TK, dated 17 October 2011;
10. Evidence P-9a: Photocopy of the Cape Coral State Court Break
Number 304 /PID/SUS/2011/PN.TK, dated 17 October 2011;
12
11. Evidence P-10: Photocopy Newspaper Lampung Express, Issue Wednesday, November 9
2011 under the title "Prosecutor Satono-Andy Kasasi";
12. Proof P-11: Photocopy of the Bandung State Court Putermination Number
22 /PID.SUS/TPK/2011/PN.BDG, dated October 11, 2011;
13. Proof of p-11a: Photocopy of the Notice of Cassation Request Number
08 /Akta.Pid/2011/PN.Bdg submitted on
21 October 2011;
In addition, the applicant submitted 2 (two) experts who have been heard
his interest in the Court trial, which describes as
following:
1. Dr. Chairul Huda, S.H., M.H. Introduction Putermination "free" (vrijspraak), as referred to in Article 1 of the number 11, Article 67, Section 191 of the paragraph (1), Section 244 and Section 263 of the paragraph (1) KUHAP, is
the ruling in the criminal case that cannot be corrected with the legal effort
any (both regular legal efforts and extraordinary legal efforts), with
the reason anything (either for sociological reasons, juridical reasons, or reasons
justice and truth), and in any way (either through the process
appeal and direct attempt by cassation and/or return review),
as well as under any provision in legislation
(well under Act No. 48 of 2009 on Power
Judiciary, Act Number 14 Year 1985 juncto Act
Number 5 Year 2004 on Supreme Court, Act No. 2 Year
1986 juncto Act Number 49 Year 2009 on Public Judicial,
and KUHAP) and jurisprudence. It is based on argumentation as
elbows:
Philosophical Reasons of the court's ruling and its legal efforts, including the verdict free of appeal,
cassation and review, when viewed as the Criminal Justice section
(SPP), hence its assessment cannot be released from the paradigm, legal model
substance of the Indonesian criminal justice system. The paradigm of the criminal justice system
Indonesia is designed in the "modern schoolparadigm" and is now applied in
the paradigm "social control school", so that the legal effort is limited as a tool
13
correction of the use of state power that someone has decided to have
commits a felony (ruling judgment) and not otherwise. "Due
Process Model" which is embraced by the Indonesian criminal justice system puts
the court as "the place of separating the guilty from the person
not guilty" so that the free verdict is "the final word" from the entire process
that. In this case, a legal substance which is an invite-
invitation should be seen as a means of "state authority restrictions" for
performing repressive measures against the public. In criminal case, the state
that "powerfull" will face the suspect/defendant who
"powerless", so that the substance of the laws should be seen
within the framework "negative "My". Instruments of legal (ordinary or outside
ordinary) legal efforts in the KUHAP are therefore primarily provided as a means of correction of
the use of such repressive authority, including the ruling
of the idlever. A ruling that does not contain an idlehold, especially the free verdict
therefore cannot be asked for any legal effort.
The Yuridis ' s reasoning In terms of the laws, such as Article 67 and Section 244,
and Article 263 verse (1) KUHAP, essentially "forbidding its efforts
the law against a free verdict". Those provisions cannot
be interpreted again because "enough" is interpreted from the word that is in it.
Article 67 of the KUHAP does not give the possibility of an appeal
against the free ruling, but The possibility of an appeals law attempt
can be done against the verdict. Similarly closed
possible appeal agai/p>
Laws of the Criminal Event regarding the phrase ".... except against a free ruling,"
has a binding legal force; 4. Deciding and stating that Section 259 Act No. 8
In 1981 on the Law of Criminal Events concerning the phrase "... can be submitted one
times the application of the cassation by the Attorney General" if not interpreted as " ... can be filed one time request for cassation by the attorney general, unless
against the free verdict", then Article 259 of the Law Number 8nst a portion of the ruling out of any demands
the law, which concerns the issue of the less precise application of the law.
Although in practice, the length of the expert knowledge is not That's the case.
That's it. The court ruling in the event was also not able to
an appeals law attempt. Similarly, Article 244 of the KUHAP, which
at all unopened the possibility of a cassation legal attempt
against the free ruling, with no exceptions. In the meantime, Article 263 paragraph
(1) KUHAP only opens the possibility of an extraordinary legal attempt
a review of the ruling containing the idlever. Essentially
any legal effort provided by KUHAP, can only be done against
14
A ruling that contains an idation, both when it is done by
is neither criminal nor criminal nor by the public prosecutor.
As an additional argument for "reason" often used by
the public prosecutor to commit an extraordinary legal effort of review
against the free ruling, is the provisions of Section 263 paragraph (2) of the letter b KUHAP,
which in fact also only opens the possibility of a review
against the ruling ruling which indicates a conflict in between
legal considerations, but cannot conducted against the free ruling and
out of any lawsuits. Article 263 paragraph (3) of the KUHAP only has
the meaning that the review can be submitted by the criminal or its heir
because the ruling does not contain rehabilitation. Viewed in terms of legal history in
Article 9 PERMA Number 1 of 1980 as the preset of review provisions
returns in KUHAP beginning with the words " Supreme Court can
review a criminal verdict that has been obtaining the legal power
remains that contain the idlers, ... ".
Section 191 paragraph (1) KUHAP determines:" if the court argues that from
the results of the examination in the trial, the defendant ' s guilt for the deed is unannounced
To him is not proven lawfully and convincingly, then the defendant is broken up.
Free. The word "error" is multi-interpretation, since it can only mean "opzet or
culpa", or meaning "the nature can be created" of the delicings. Given
KUHP adheres to monistis, where "opzet or culpa" can be formulated
(being "bestanddeel") or unformulated (being an "element") in an
criminal act, elicits the consequences of a different ruling. The "free" ruling
only in terms of "opzet or culpa" becomes a core delicary (bestanddeel delict)
and is disconnected "from all lawsuits" in terms of "opzet or
culpa" being an element Quietly (element delict). If "error" means "trait
can be dedicted" persons committing a criminal offence, so that in this case the verdict
"free" is dropped because the defendant cannot be accounted for in
criminal law, then the verdict is "free" It can only be dropped instead of
only because it is not proof of "criminal act" but also "criminal liability".
In this case the "free" verdict is dropped when " criminal act"is proven but
"criminal liability"is not proven, then the verdict may be categorised" free no
pure or "niet zuivere vrijspraak". "Free is not pure" is the verdict "free of
any veiled lawsuits" or "bedekte ontslag van rechtvervolging".
15
Thus, "free is not pure" or "niet zuivere vrijspraak" also not
the ruling containing the idling. Therefore, the birth of the practice of law that
distinguish the free and free ruling is not pure, not derived from
the judicial conception that in the ruling there is a fallaness about
the ruling should have been "No pure free".
Neither free verdict (pure free or free free), is the ruling
that "does not contain an idation", so it cannot be legal of any legal effort
anything.
Sociological reasons of legal practice of "received" legal efforts against free ruling
indicates a very far inconsistency of the "legal joy" that
originally was introduced as an excuse for the effort. This is, as
referred to in Decision Number M. 14-PW.07.03 1983 dated 10
December 1983 about the Additional Pecoman Implementation KUHAP, which
is mentioned if "situation and conditions, for the sake of law, justice and truth"
Needs it. The Supreme Court ruling that was seen as
"jurisprudence" that became the source of the law it was the legal attempt of kasation
The free verdict was Decree Number 275 /K/Pid/1983 against the Defendant Sonson
Natalegawa, the deep The scale overturned the Court's ruling
High in the matter was due to a view of "only a ruling that is not
a free verdict that can be appealed". How possible, because
is highly inconsistency, the Supreme Court stance that declared the High Court
not authorized to examine, prosecute and cut matters in level
the appeal against the free verdict, by referencing the Article 67 KUHAP, but
The same Supreme Court in the same case as well, in that ruling
anyway, states authorities examining, prosecuting and severing at the rate
the case of the case by which the previous judge had been broken free, based on
Article 244 of the KUHAP. While both provisions (Articles 67 and 244 KUHAP)
contain "the same legal norm", i.e. exclude (banning) from being able to
a legal effort (appeals and casings) against a free ruling.
The Supreme Court of Justice which is seen as a "jurisprudence" that is
the legal source of the legal attempt of the free verdict is Putermination
Number 275K/Pid/1983 against the defendant Sonson Natalegawa, throughout
Expert knowledge does not perform "an examination of formiel" is the verdict
16
Central Jakarta District Court No. 33 /1981/Regular Criminal Date
February 10, 1982, which in the end is expected to be cascaded to the Supreme Court
that, is a pure free or not pure free ruling. Similarly
Supreme Court Decree Number 1144KlPID/2006 which was the ruling
cassation against the free ruling dropped by the Jakarta District Court
South Nomor2068/Pen.Pid/2005/PN.Jak.Cell, dated February 20, 2006, against
Defendant ECW Neloe et al, not first performed an examination and
consideration that the ruling was a "free is not pure" ruling. In
essentially, the acceptance of the Public Prosecutor's case against the free verdict
solely for the "will" of the Supreme Court to "criminalize" the person-
the person (not also appropriate to be called the accused) has been declared "free".
by the court. The will to convict or punish, it is clearly not an
a legitimate motive for the power of the judiciary, rather than a motive that is essentially
fulfilling the reasons "of the circumstances and conditions, for the sake of law, justice and truth" that
2003, instead of refusing The Court of Justice's case
The Supreme views of the Singkil Court's ruling as "the verdict
of pure free". In this case it can be summed up "will to punish" from
Supreme Court against Bicar Sinaga, SH nothing, which is different as and
hence the opposite against Sonson Natalegawa and ECW Neloe dkk.
The execution The provisions of the law, which are solely based on
solely "to punish", are clearly conflicting attitudes
with the high-emphasized perijustice of KUHAP, other laws
as well as the law. in general in Indonesia.
The basis of the free verdict is the ruling that Iangsung The bukum (bukum) power
fixed, instantaneously at times pronounced. The right to accept the verdict,
declares resisting the verdict by filing an appeal (and hence it
17
casings), and expressed second thought to study further the ruling,
as referred to in Article 196 of the KUHAP, in the middle of a time that
is specified in the Act, can only be performed against the verdict
the idleper. That is, ordinary legal efforts, both appeal and cassation, not
can be done against a free ruling because it is not a judgment of the ident. Matter
this is actually the one that is disputed by Article 67 and Section 244 of the KUHAP with
the words "except". Whereas extraordinary legal efforts, such as a review
return, against the free ruling, are obstructed by the state (Prosecuting
General) other than because it is excluded in Article 263 of the KUHAP, also because
review is the penal right and its heir, and not the right
the public prosecutor. In essence, the acceptance of law enforcement practices with respect to
with ordinary legal efforts and extraordinary legal efforts against free rulings,
is only a very naked arbitrarer to do
Supreme Court, against the innocent people who have succeeded
separated by the previous trial of the guilty, which is on the floor
by instinct and birani mere punishment.
Rehabilitation Defendant for Putermination Free There are three types of rulings in criminal cases, which is the ruling that
does not concern the subject matter (indictments are null and void
receiving a common prosecution charge), the ruling ruling, and the ruling that
is not an idlehold (free of any legal and free prosecution). In
this "free" verdict is a ruling that has the highest value, which can be
equated with the ruling "not guilty", in the common law tradition. In
other laws, it is formulated as "unproven
guilty", as referred to in Article 33 of the paragraph (1) Invite-
Invite Number 32 Year of 2004 on the Local Government.
The free-distraused defendant has the right to "get" rehabilitation "a good name and
restore his honor, in which case it basically becomes" kewijiban "
the court for doing so by listing it in a ruling
(Article 97 of the KUHAP). This further strengthened the argument that,
a direct free-force ruling remained (in krackht vangewijsde),
at the time as well as being read out. This also results in mutatis
mutandis essentially an obligation to rehabilitate it, i.e. with
"recovering" all rights that were briefly reduced due to the judicial process
18
which is maintained by a defendant, must be done on the first occasion
after the ruling of the legal power remains. Given the immediate free ruling
a fixed bukum force, then any legal effort done against
this case (cassation or review), does not eliminate the obligation
conduct such rehabilitation.
In This relationship, it is a "legal obligation" to rehabilitate
the defendant who is the head of the county declared "not proven guilty"
or decided to be released by the court, karma is not proven
committing a felony. Implementation of Article 33 paragraph (1) and (2) Law No. 32
The 2004 ejaws "rehabilitation" of the head of the area which became
the accused but declared not to be found guilty or acquitted it, by
the action " exceeded the limit of the " Attorney/General Prosecuting Authority, when against
the verdict was filed for cassation. In this case "liability" rehabilitates
the defendant is hindered by the action beyond the jurisdiction of the Prosecutor, which
with him according to the frugality of the Expert, is not merely merely a measure
at the order of the judge's ruling restoring the defendant and the dignity of the defendant,
but the abanding of a person ' s basic rights protected by Article 28D UUD
1945.
2. Expert Syaiful Ahmad Dinar, S.H., M.H.
That Article 244 of the KUHAP in its application by the Supreme Court since
the existence of a Justice Minister's Decision Number M14/0703 date
December 10, 1983, the core stated that for free verdict not
may be appealed, but may be filed with reason for
the truth and for justice, and the legal interest, and truth of the verdict
free, Based on that then the pedomy refers to to
the previous jurisprudence that no jurisprudence has granted
plea for cassation;
In such jurisprudence there is a interpretation of the meaning against the law or
interpretation wederrechtelijk materiele wederrechtelijk. Since 1966,
jurisprudence Number 42 states the interpretation against the law is applied in
the negative meaning. That is, if the deed is contrary to the Act,
but is not despicable, then the defendant may be released as long
The interests of the community are served, the defendant is unprofitable, the state is not
aggrieved, then the defendant does not need to be punished;
19
That since the Supreme Court Number Register 275 /K/1983 dated
December 15, 1983, in the Perkara Raden Sonson Natalegawa, it has since been
contra legem application of the law which is brimly benderang violates
The Act is carried out by the Supreme Court because the Supreme Court
interprets deeds against the law should not only be interpreted
formal, but must also be viewed from the general prevailing principles according to
In society, when the public considers it to be done.
despicable, then he can be punished. From the ruling of the jurisprudence it evolved steadily
until now;
That according to the experts of practical terms not least of the ruling that
contains such a result in the case of Tommy Suharto, on the court
The first level he had been cut off was free, but the prosecutor applied for the cassation and
he was convicted of being punished later in the aftermath of the verdict being killed by
Tommy Suharto. Then in the ruling Review of the Return of Tommy Suharto
was released. For example, the aftermath of the contra legem acceptable (niet
ontvantkelijk verklaard).
However, if the Constitutional Court of Justice argues otherwise, the following
is addressed the Government's explanation, as follows:
III. The Government's Explanation For The Application Of Article 244 And Article 259 Of The Law Number 8 Of 1981 On The Law Of Criminal Events (KUHAP) As Well As Article 33 Verse (1) Act Number 32 Of 2004.
Against the provisions of Section 244 provisions and Section 259 Invite-
Invite Number 8 Year 1981 on Criminal Event Law as well as Article 33
paragraph (1) juncto Section 30 and Section 31 of the Act No. 32 Year
2004, which stated:
Article 244 of the Criminal Code which governs that: " Against the ruling of the criminal case given at the last level
by another court other than the Supreme Court, the defendant or
the public prosecutor can submit a cassation check request to
Supreme Court unless against the free verdict ".
Article 259 of the KUHAP set that:
26
" (1) For the sake of the general interest of all the rulings that
obtain a fixed huum force from another court other than
Supreme Court, can be submitted once a case of cassation by
Attorney General;
(2) The termination of Cassation for the general interest may not harm the party
which is in the interest ".
Article 30 of Law Number 32 of 2004 which governs that:
"(1) The Regional Chief and/or deputy head of the area is temporarily terminated
by the President without going through the proposed DPRD if stated
does criminal offenses threatened with felon
at least 5 (five) years or more based on the verdict
court;
(2) Regional heads and/or deputy heads of the area were temporarily suspended
by the President without going through the proposed DPRD if it is proven to do
A criminal offence as referred to in paragraph (1) is based on
the court ruling that has gained the force of the law remains ".
Article 31 of Law Number 32 of 2004 which governs that:
(1) " Regional and/or deputy head of the area is dismissed
temporarily by the President without going through the proposed DPRD because
is charged with the following criminal corrupt. that the constitutional loss of the intended applicant is specific
(special) and actual or at least as potential as it is
reasonable reasoning can be certain to occur;
d. Due (causal verband) between the loss and
the enactment of the legislation is being moveed to be tested;
e. It is possible that by the request of a request then
the constitutional loss postured will not or no longer occur.
Over those things above, then according to the Government needs to be questioned
interest The applicant is to be appropriate as a party to assume
the rights and/or its constitutional authority is harmed by the expiring
provisions of the provisions of Section 244 and Section 259 of the Criminal Code and Section 33 of the paragraph
(1) juncto of Section 30 and Article 31 of Law No. 32 of 2004, also whether
there is a constitutional loss The intended applicant is specific
(special) and actual or at least potential that according to
reasonable reasoning can be certain to occur, and whether or not there is
relationship causes (causal verband) between the loss and the enactment
the legislation is motled to be tested.
24
Against the question above, may need to be reviled the things as
following:
1. That the applicant expressly acknowledges that Article 244 of the KUHAP is not
contrary to the 1945 Constitution (vide Petitum Pemapplicant number 2
page 10).
2. While Article 259 of the KUHAP is declared to have no power
the law is binding when it is not interpreted as, " ... can be submitted one time
a request for cassation by the Attorney General, except against the verdict
free" (vide Petitum The applicant is numeral 4 and 5) and;
3. Against Article 33 of the paragraph (1) Act No. 32 of 2004 stated
contrary to the 1945 Constitution, if not interpreted as
" ... based on the court ruling that has acquired the force
the law remains, ... including the ruling free" (vide Petitum Pemapplicant
figures 6 and 7).
It clearly shows that there is actually no and/or
not the Constitutional Court authority to check the plea
a quo because the Court ' s authority is testing legislation
that means testing the suitability between the contents of a particular Act
with the contents of the Basic Law in accordance with Article 24C of the 1945 Constitution
reads, " The Constitutional Court is authorized to prosecute at the rate
first and last of its verdict is final to test
legislation against legislation basic ", not testing one or more articles in an Act or some section
between some of the Act that is already in sync with the Invite-
Basic Invite (vide Section 10 of the paragraph (1) Act Number 24 Year
2003 on Constitutional Court as amended with
Act No. 8 of 2011 stating, " Court
Constitution authorized to judge on the first and final level
The verdict is final to (a) to test the legislation against
Basic Law 1945 ");
4. That according to the Government, the applicant's application
mixed up his desire to change Article 259 of the KUHAP
as well as Article 33 of the paragraph (1) juncto Section 30 and Section 31 of Law No. 32
2004 in accordance with its interpretation. subjectives for
25
Its sole interest is to be reactivated as a Regent
The East Lampung is more concerned with the issue of application of the article-
section of the a quo Act, not because of the sections a quo
unconstitutional or contradictory to the 1945 Constitution, so with
it is not the Court's authority to judge;
5. That the Constitutional Court's authority actually has been
is limitatively determined and has fulfilled the principle of lex certa (asas
legal certainty) in the sense that no other interpretation of
is indicated. in the text.
Based on that argument above, according to the Government pledging
to the Honorable Assembly of the Constitutional Court of the Republic
Indonesia who examined the case a quo could provide the verdict
as follows:
1. Stating that the Constitutional Court is not authorized to examine
case a quo;
2. Stating the applicant's request is not incorrectly applied
provisions of Article 244 and Section 259 Act of 1981 due to the Prosecutor
continue to apply for the cassation of the the free verdict, which actually has
is expressly prohibited in Section 244 Act 8, 1981. The Prosecutor's attitude
This General Prosecuting has caused widespread damage to many
the accused is free, thus causing problematic
the law in the practice field event in advance of the court " (vide
Applicant Requests page 9 and ding the constitutional loss parameters, the Constitutional Court has
provides an understanding and limitation on constitutional losses that
arising out of the enactment of an Act must meet 5 (five)
33
terms (vide Verdict Case Number 006 /PUU-III/2005 and Perkara Number
011 /PUU-V/2007) that is the following:
a. the right and/or constitutional authority of the applicant granted
by the Indonesian State Constitution of >" The Regional Head and/or deputy head of the area dismissed
while referred to as Section 30 paragraph (1), Section 31 of the paragraph
(1), and the Section 32 verses (5) after going through the judicial process as it turns out
proved innocent based on the court ruling that
has gained the legal force fixed, at least 30 (three
The President's Day has rehabilitated and activated
27
return to the region and/or vice head of the region
is concerned until the end of his term;
(2) If the Regional Chief and/or regional deputy of the region
dismissed While as contemplated in paragraph (1) has
end of his term, the President has been rehabilitated and
does not reactivate it;
(3) Tata means the implementation of the provisions as contemplated in
Article 30, Article 31, and Article 32 are set in Regulation
Government ".
The provisions of the above (except Section 244 of the Criminal Code) by
The applicant is deemed to be inconsistent and contrary to Article 1 of the paragraph (3),
Article 27 of the paragraph (1), Section 28D of the paragraph (1) and Article 28I of the paragraph (2) Invite-
Invite Basic State of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945, stating:
Article 1 paragraph (3) Constitution of 1945: "Indonesian State is the state of law".
Article 27 paragraph (1) Constitution of 1945: " All citizens It's both in the law and
the government. "
Article 28 D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution: "Everyone is entitled to the recognition, guarantee, protection and certainty
fair law and equal treatment before the law".
Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution: "Everyone has the right to be free from discriminatory treatment on the basisanything and is entitled to protection against the treatment that
is discriminatory to it".
Thus with the enactment of Article 244 and Section 259 of the KUHAP juncto
Article 33 of Law No. 32 of 2004 is considered to have been " ... adverse
the right constitutionality of the applicant is a violation of the rights as
guaranteed in the 1945 Constitution " (vide Petition Applicant page 10).
Against the presumption/reason of the applicant above, the Government can
deliver an explanation as follows:
1. That in his request the applicant acknowledges and states
in his decree that the norm in the provisions of Article 244 of the Criminal Code
is the legal and constitutional norm of the Act. So
28
The government does not need to provide any further explanation of
a provision of the quo;
2. That is proportional if discussed in a theoretical glance here against
the type of free ruling, before the effective KUHAP developed the practice
the court that divided the free verdict into two categories is
the ruling pure free (zuiver vrijspraak) and free-free verdict
(verkapte vrijspraak),
Dr. Mudzakkir in passing his expertise in the trial
plea for testing Article 244 KUHAP (register 17 /PUU-VIII/2010)
declaring that a pure free disconnect is an act
dismayed is not proven to be valid and convincing, meaning no
evidence supports against the indictment filed by the Prosecutor.
Whereas this unpure free verdict occurs as a result of
3 indications are (1) differences in the interpretation of the law, (2)
assessment differences regarding the evidence submitted at the trial, (3)
there is likely a difference in assessment regarding interpretation
the application of the law against the evidence submitted at the trial
so it is reasonable and worth if the difference should be
completed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, in the absence of
the case against this impure free ruling, so
The Supreme Court can provide the affairs, or attitude
to that interpretation, the attitude to the assessment of the tool
the evidence and the attitude towards the application of the law against the evidence
the evidence in that court;
The examination of the free verdict is not pure by the Court
The Great is done with regard to the provisions of Article 253 paragraph (1)
KUHAP stated, " Examination in cassation level is done by
Supreme Court at the request of the parties as
referred to Section 244 and Section 249 to determine:
a. Whether or not a law regulation is not applied or
is applied not as it is;
b. Whether it is true how to prosecute is not implemented according to
promulg;
c. It is true that the court has overtaken the limits of its authority.
29
So that the actual free ruling material is not pure
as previously described is qualifying
the Supreme Court case checks as intended
Section 253 of the paragraph (1) KUHAP.
that the Government cites Statutory Considerations
The Constitutional Court in the ruling Number 41/PHPU.D-VI/ 2008 that
confirms that " The judiciary according to the 1945 Constitution must be
asas justice, asas legal certainty and asas benefit so
The court cannot be fitted only by the sound of the legislation
but it must also dig up the taste justice by sticking to it
on the substantive significance of the statute itself " instead Article 244
KUHAP that implementation was also poured in the Decision
Minister of Justice Number M 14 PW.07.03 Year 1983 about
Additional Implementation Guidelines KUHAP, may provide warranty
presence protection and legal certainty, because if there is
the wrong ruling could still apply for a cassation legal effort
as in the Supreme Court Decree of December 15, 1983
Register Number 275 /Pid/1983.
Not pure free disconnect that should not be made legal effort
casings can clog the aspiration of justice for victims of crimes that
suffer for criminal acts of crime and also a sense of justice
society. This will endanger the law enforcement practices in
the future. It is feared that the people especially the victims
will no longer believe in law enforcement institutions. The verdict
free is not pure that should not be carried out the legal effort of the case of
in accordance with the spirit of law enforcement, justice, and certainty
the law.
3. That Article 244 of the KUHAP in its implementation is corroborated
with the Supreme Court decision
No. 273 /K/Pid/1983 remains a breakthrough or an
stepping up for legal thinkers. progressive given th p>(2) In the event the prosecution is prosecuted in the face of the court in a criminal case
as referred to in Article 21 of the paragraph (4) Act Number
8 Year 1981 on Criminal Event Law without being held, prosecutors can
dismissed temporarily from his post by the Prosecutor Great.
e. Article 219 paragraph (1) Act No. 27 of 2009 on Assembly
People's Consultative Assembly, Rajkyat House of Representatives, House of Representatives
Regional and Regional People's Representative Council,als concerned through his position of influence
the process of vetting or litigation that is dismayed to him. Or
otherwise, prevent law enforcement from being affected by the position of the accused
as the head of the area, in a legal culture that is eww pakewuh
By doing so, the temporary stop is realized principle
equation or equality before the law as intended
by Article 27 of the paragraph (1) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. Cause, with
the temporary dismissal of an area chief and/or
the deputy head of the area charged with the crime, as set
in Section 31 of the paragraph (1) the Act of the Pemda, any person directly
may see that anyone who commits a criminal or a crime
then against it will apply the same legal process, in the sense that
the office is held by a person should not impede or
obstructing accountability process The person's criminal if he
is charged with committing a felony. For certain posts that
hold a person charged with a felony, according to
reasonable reasoning, able to impede the course of the criminal justice process
against the person who concerned-known as obstruction of
justice-then for the sake of the principle of equality in the face of the law (equality
before the law) there must be a legal step to negate the impediment
it is.
37
In connection with a plea for a quo, administrative action is
interim stop of an area header and/or deputy head
the area charged with a criminal offence as set
in Section 31 of paragraph (1) the Pemda Act is precisely a legal step to
negation of any potential obstruction of justice ";
8) That it relates to the provisions regarding" temporary stops "
The Constitutional Court has also argued for a temporary stop
is Quite a fair and propotional action. It is described and
described in the Constitutional Court Decree No. 133 /PUU-VII/2009,
which in its legal consideration mentions " That Section 32 paragraph (1)
letter c Act 30/2002, that is, in the case of the KPK leadership to be a defendant in
The criminal offence is dismissed from office, which is
form of punishment or sanction, though grant and fall of sanctions or
The penalties must first go through the criminal justice verdict in the case
which is not dismayed, for the constitutional rights of the applicant to remain respected,
protected and filled with possible arbitrary actions of the apparatus
the country, like police, prosecutors, judges, and other government officials as well as
society. With such temporary stops against
The KPK leadership is a fairly fair and proportional act for
The KPK leadership is set to be a suspect in order
provides a balance between maintaining execution agility
tasks and control of the KPK and protection against rights
The citizen of the KPK leadership ... (vide
Constitution Number 133 /PUU-VII/2009 dated 25 November 2009, letter e, pp.
69-70)
9) That for the benchmarking of the temporary stops
set in Section 30 of the paragraph (1) and Article 31 of the paragraph (1) of the Act
a quo DPR view the need to decipher provisions governing
temporary stops for state officials/public officials such as:
a. Article 24 paragraph (1) as well as Article 25 of the paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) Act No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court, which reads:
Article 24 paragraph (1) " The constitutional judge before being dishonorated,
temporarily dismissed from office with Presidential Decree
38
at the request of the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, except for reasons of dismissal
as referred to in Article 23 of the paragraph (2) letter a ".
Section 25 of the paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) (1) If it is against a The constitutional judge has a restraining order,
The constitutional judge is concerned temporarily dismissed from
his post.
(2) Constitutional judges are dismissed while from office if
charges in advance of the court in criminal case as
referred to in Article 21 of the paragraph (4) Act No. 8 of 1981
about the Criminal Event Law despite not being held.
b. Article 13 paragraph (1) Act No. 5 of 2004 on Change of Law
Number 14 of 1985 on Supreme Court, which states
that " Chairman, Vice Chairman, Young Speaker, and Chief Justice of the Court
the Great before the terminated dishonor as intended
in Article 12 of the paragraph (1) may be temporarily dismissed from office
by the President on the proposal of the Supreme Court. "
c. Section 34 of the paragraph (1) and -Article 35 of the Law Number 22 of 2004 on the Commission
Judicial, which reads:
Article 34 paragraph (1) " Chairman, Vice Chairman, and Member of the Judicial Commission before being terminated
not with respect as referred to in Article 33 of the paragraph (1) may
be temporarily dismissed from office by the President, at the commission
Judicial;
Article 35 (1) If against a Member of the Commission Judicial there are orders
arrest followed by detention, Member The Judicial Commission
that is temporarily suspended from office.
(2) If a member of the Judicial Commission is prosecuted in advance of the court
in a criminal case without being held as in Law Event
Criminal, which is concerned can be temporarily dismissed from
in office.
d. Article 15 of the Law Number 16 of 2004 on the Prosecutor, reads:
39
(1) If there is an arrest warrant that followed with detention
against a prosecutor, by itself the prosecutor is concerned
temporarily dismissed of
nor the public office, so kiherja the institution concerned is not
36
interrupted with the suspect status of a regional head/deputy head
area.
7) That against the provisions of temporary stops and/or
representatives to the area, the Constitutional Court in the Decision Case Number
024 /PUU-III/2005 page 39 and page 40, have argued that
Temporal termination as set out in Section 31 of the paragraph (1) e 244 Act Number 8
Year 1981 on the Law of Criminal Events (State Sheet of the Republic of Indonesia
46
In 1981 Number 76, Additional Gazette Republic of Indonesia Number
3209, subsequently called KUHAP) did not conflict with the Act
Basic State of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945 (subsequently called UUD) 1945),
as well as the power of binding laws. In addition, the applicant pleads
testing of the constitutionalitt legal process
brief, clear, fast and can be accounted for politically. So
if a County Chief has been in doubt or allegedly by the House or
by the people in his area that he has done a legal deed.
The Panja Chairman Then the 2nd one (two) also concerns the issue Parties
43
engaged in the termination process, there must be one (one)
understanding among us of course if in opinion
we shall remain with the laws of which
There used to be. One of them concerns the role of the role
the DPRD in the Susduk Act proposing the appointment
and the dismissal of the regional head, meaning it may be in the process for
The repellation can be done by the DPRD because It's been a while.
Give me the assignment. Then maybe the party that
laid off this is who it might have been the
to stop it from it anyway. But in that context
The affirmation of the principle should be differentiated as to which one entered
the qualifying of the dismissal that is temporary or that is
remains. The DPR in its drafes was more on the stop process that
referred to a temporary stop it was only special to the space
Iingkup that concerns the criminal matter Pak.
Government: (Prof. -DR. Abdul Gani Abdullah, SH., LLM, /General Legal and Legal Department of Justice and Human Rights)
Seeing this then operational implementation in this section is called
sentencing at least 5 (five) years, makar and So on.
Then there's a relationship with a temporary stop.
If it's an investigation on a case that his sentence is being threatened at security-
A lack of 5 years he could be held up to the proceedings.
Hold on. Well, if being held on how he can get a letter and
all sorts of shit he can't run errands. That's why
The government is proposing a temporary "instrument stop".
Then it was said to be how it went on and on? If
a temporary stop it turns out to be the end of his term yes he
dismissed it as easy logic.
It was politically possible to mean it was knocked down or on the saw. So the logic
that was used so that the formulas are so. Well, the event
the long-term trial should not be interpreted as a hindration
to make a temporary stop. If it has been held continuously
continuously until the court proceedings are extended. Anyway
44
The holding of the Local Government will undergo a hindration and
that is the need for a temporary stop.
Panja Chairman
Well so that its core to this whole substance seems to be us
all had 1 (one) deal, it started from what I said earlier
from the end of the stop, because of the treatment of
cause of the stop was different, one of the examples was
mentioned by Mr. Farhan should be there as it comes to the matter
ban, sanctions against, in any cause exist
surely those treatments will differ both in our time
formulating the process and against its actions, until
the extent to which a temporary measure, until dismissed and another
so forth.
3. The testing of Article 244 and Section 259 of the Criminal Code
Related to the testing of Article 244 and Section 259 of the KUHAP, DPR
argues that it is not a matter of the constitutionality of the norm
but rather an issue of applying the norm by enforage laws, as
found by the applicant in the a quo request on pages 6 and 9.
In petitum figures of 2 application a quo also stated that the Terms
Section 244 of the Criminal Code does not conflict with the Constitution. 1945. Therefore,
that the House will not provide a response related to Article 244 of the KUHAP.
Article 259 of the KUHAP is one of the outside legal efforts
ordinary filing for general interest in the ruling
the court that has gained the power of the law remains. This means
despite the casings of the General Prosecuting, but still not
blocking the execution of a ruling that has the power
the law remains. Thus against a court-free ruling that
has had a fixed legal force, then despite the efforts
the extraordinary law of the case of the General Prosecutions under Article 259
KUHAP, it is not blocking a person ' s right to obtain
any rights including the right as set out in Article 33 of the paragraph
(1) the Pemda Act.
45
Thus the DPR pleads if the Assembly of Judges grants an amar
the verdict as follows:
1. Stating that a quo was rejected for the whole or not-
it would not have been acceptable for a quo
2. The DPR's description was accepted for the whole;
3. Stating the provisions of Article 30 paragraph (1), Section 31 of the paragraph (1) and Section 33
The Law No. 32 of 2004 on Local Government
does not conflict with Article 1 of paragraph (2) and paragraph (3), Article 27 of the paragraph (1),
Article 28D paragraph (1) and Article 28I paragraph (2) of the State of the Republic of Indonesia
In 1945;
4. Stating the provisions of Article 30 paragraph (1), Section 31 of the paragraph (1) and Article 33
Act Number 32 of the Year 2004 of the Local Government
still has a binding legal force.
5. Declaring Section 244 and Section 259 of the Law No. 8 Year
1981 of the KUHAP does not conflict with Article 1 of paragraph (2) and paragraph
(3), Article 27 paragraph (1), Article 28D of paragraph (1) and Article 28I paragraph (2) of the Constitution
Republic of the Republic Indonesia Year 1945;
6. Stating Article 244 and Article 259 of the Law No. 8 Year
1981 of the KUHAP remains a binding legal force.
[2.5] weighed that the applicant delivered a written conclusion that
received in the Court of Justice On February 16, 2012, on
the point was fixed with its stance;
[2.6] weighed that to shorten the description in this ruling,
everything that happened in the trial was quite appointed in the news. event
trial, which is an integral one with
This verdict;
3. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
[3.1] weighed that the main issue of the applicant's request was
in order for the Constitutional Court (subsequently called the Court) to declare the phrase
"... except against a free verdict" in the Articlmeans it should be
temporarily dismissed.
Well based on the second (two) also without going through 5 years is exactly the same.
Well then the following has got the legal power that
remains The 3rd (three) was exactly the same. It's exactly the same thing
that the Regional Chief is being perceived as still being the device
the government of the nasiona! area, so without going through the DPRD process.
also this must be done that our chief proposal before brought on the Team
This sync is good for us el t was decided in a Meeting of Judges attended
by the nine Justices of the Constitution, Moh. Mahfud MD as Chairman was arrested
Member, Achmad Sodiki, Muhammad Alim, M. Akil Mochtar, Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi,
Anwar Usman, Hamdan Zoelva, Harjono, and Maria Farida Indrati, respectively
as Members, at on Wednesday, respectively. The fourteenth, the month of March, the year two thousand twelve, and spoken in the Plenary Session of the Constitutional Court
50
affirmed in Section 259 paragraph (2) KUHAP. A ruling by the court
first rate or the level of appeal of the general judiciary or the first degree
or the level of appeal of a military judiciary that is already gaining strength
the law remains that it can be moorted. cassation for the sake of law by
Attorney General;
Makna cassation for legal purposes is the possibility of
a ruling at the first level or level of appeal that an attempt is not made
law by the prosecutor the public and the defendant, so that the verdict
gains a fixed legal force, In fact, the verdict contained
an error or irreparable error of the law. To correct
the ruling can only be reached by the request of a cassation
of the legal interest. In contrast to the state administration's decision
in which there is a clause, "If then there is a fallaness
this decision, it will be done as repairs as it should", so
allows State administration officials are concerned with fixing
its decision;
[3.7.1] A draw that according to the Court, the provisions of Article 259 of the KUHAP do not harm the constitutional right of the applicant relating to Article 1 of the paragraph
(3) UUD 1945 stated, "The State of Indonesia is the state of the law". In fact
with the provisions of Article 259 of the KUHAP that allow a correction
of errors or errors of applying the law, it means that it becomes a means
control over the application of the law. Furthermore, according to the provisions of Article 259 paragraph (2)
KUHAP the ruling of the case for the benefit of the required law should not be
adverse to the interest;
[3.7.2] weighed that about the equality in the face of the law and the government, according to the Court, no one is harmed
by the enactment of Article 259 of the KUHAP because it is addressed to "all" the ruling
the criminal who has obtained a fixed legal force that has been severed by
the court other than the Supreme Court;
[3.7.3] Draw that so anyway about Fair legal certainty and discriminatory treatment, unequivocal in Article 259 of the KUHAP
that against the criminal verdict that has obtained a fixed legal force
that the court is broken up other than the Supreme Court can I'm being asked for legal purposes by the Attorney General, and that's just once and for all.
51
for all persons without any distinction. As such,
The court is no element of legal uncertainty or discriminatory element
in the section a quo;
[3.8] weighed that regarding the constitutionality testing of Article 33 of the paragraph
(1) Act 32/2004 juncto Act 12/2008, which according to the applicant phrase "... is based on
the court ruling that has gained the legal force remains ..." which
according to the applicant contradictory to the 1945 Constitution if not added to
the phrase "includes a free verdict". According to the Court, a ruling
gets the fixed legal power, must be executed. As for the subject matter which the verdict means that obtaining the powers of the law remains and
must be exercised or executed, whether any ruling no longer exists
a legal attempt to be taken, or including a free ruling, or a
ruling that although there is still a legal effort, will but an outside law effort
ordinary, already executed, or pending a review ruling
newly executed, it is the issue of applying the law, not the
the problem of the constitutionality of norms. Notwithstanding Article 268 of the paragraph (1) KUHAP
states, "Request for review of a ruling is not
suspending nor terminates the implementation of that ruling",
but in its application, there is a executed the ruling before the presence of
the review ruling returned and there was executing the verdict after the review ruling came back. Similarly, the provisions of Article 244 of the KUHAP also
are being honed by the applicant to be declared in accordance with the 1945 Constitution, but
in its application to the free ruling there is also a mohoned
examination of the cassation. As such, the supplicant request
the addition of the phrase, " including a free ruling" in Article 33 of the paragraph (1) Act
32/2004 juncto Act 12/2008 is not a matter of the constitutionality of the norm, but
the issue of the application of the law;
[3.9] weighed that by due to the request of the applicant relating to
with Section 244 of the Criminal Code and Article 33 of the paragraph (1) Act 32/2004 juncto Act 12/2008
The court is not authorized to be in control, and testing Article 259 of the Criminal Code
The applicant has no legal position (legal standing), then the underlying
request for the applicant is not considered;
52
4. KONKLUSI
Based on the assessment of the facts and laws as described above, the Court concluded:
[4.1] The court of competent court courted the application of Article 259 of the Criminal Code and
not authorized to prosecute Article 244 KUHAP and Article 33 paragraph (1) Act
32/2004 juncto Act 12/2008;
[4.2] The applicant has no legal position (legal standing) for
applying for testing Section 259 of the KUHAP;
[4.3] Pokok application is not considered.
Based on the State Basic Law Republic of Indonesia Year
1945 and recalled Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Court
Constitution as amended by Act No. 8 Year
2011 on Change of Law Number 24 Year 2003 about
Constitutional Court (State Sheet of Indonesia Year 2011 number
70, Additional Gazette Republic of Indonesia Number 5226) and Invite-
Invite Number 48 Year 2009 on the Power of Justice (State Sheet)
Republic Of Indonesia 2009 Number 157, Additional State Sheet
Republic of Indonesia No. 5076);
5. AMAR RULING
Prosecute,
Declaring the applicant is not acceptable for the whole.
I
interest; and
Article 33 of the paragraph (1) Act 32/2004 juncto Act 12/2008 which states, "Head
regions and/or regional deputy heads that are temporarily suspended as
is referred to in Article 30 of the paragraph (1), Section 31 of the paragraph (1), and Article 32 of the paragraph (5) after
through the judicial process turns out to be found not guilty based on the verdict
the court has gained strength law remains, at least 30 (three
s) the ys">
53 open to the public at on Tuesday, the twenty-seventh date, in March, year two thousand twelve, by the eight Judges of the Constitution of the, Moh. Mahfud MD as Chairman of the Members, Achmad Sodiki, Muhammad Alim, M. Akil Mochtar, Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi, Anwar Usman, Hamdan Zoelva, and Maria Farida Indrati, respectively as Member, with accompanied by Cholidin Nasir as the Switcher Panitera, and is attended by the applicant, the Government or the representative, as well as the House of Representatives or the representing. CHAIRMAN, ttd. Moh. -Mahfud MD. MEMBERS, ttd. Achmad Sodiki ttd. Muhammad Alim ttd. M. Akil Mochtar ttd. Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi ttd. Anwar Usman ttd. Zoelva Hamdan ttd. Maria Farida Indrati PANITERA SURROGATE, ttd. Cholidin Nasir
