2

2. SITTING LAWSUIT

[2.1] In a draw that the applicant submitted a request with a letter

an application dated 16 September 2011 received in Kepaniteraan

Constitutional Court (subsequently called the Court of Justice) on

September 16, 2011, based on the Receipt Receipt of the Number

327 /PAN.MK/ 2011 recorded in the Book Registration Book with

Number 65 /PUU-IX/2011 on 26 September 2011, which has been edited

with an application dated October 18, 2011 and received in Overheating

The court on October 18, 2011, outlining the things as follows:

I. Constitution of the Constitutional Court

1. That Article 24 of the paragraph (2) of the Basic Law of 1945 (later called the Constitution

1945) states:

" The judicial power is carried out by a Supreme Court and the Agency

The Judiciary under which the judicial environment is held. public, environment

religious justice, military judicial environment, judicial environment environment

state, and by a Constitutional Court ";

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

Number 24 In 2003 on Constitutional Court (State Sheet RI

2003 No. 98, Additional sheet of State of RI Number 4316, next

called the MK Act) and Article 2 of the paragraph (1) of the Act of Number 48 of the Year

2009 on the Power of Justice (State Sheet of 2009 Number

157, Additional State Institution RI Number 5076), stated, " Court

Constitution authorities prosecute at first and final levels that

the verdict be final to test the Act against Invite-

Invite Basic Republic of Indonesia in 1945 ";

II. Legal Position (Legal Standing) The applicant

1. That Article 51 paragraph (1) of the Act of MK (Evidence P-1) as well as the explanation states,

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

its constitutionality is harmed by the enactment of the Act, i.e.: a.

3

individual of the Indonesian national; b. the unity of the people and the country's principles

The unity of the Republic of Indonesia is set in legislation; c. legal entity

public or private; or d. country's institutions ";

That the applicant is Tjetje Iskandar who has given " Power " to

Albert Nadeak, SH Cs at the Law Firm office of Albert His Majesty & Partners which

is based in the FATMAWATI FESTIVAL ' s RS. Fatmawati Number 50 Block A

Number 11 South Jakarta 12440 to submit "materiile test" to the Court

Constitution because "The rights and authority of the Applicant Constitution" have been harmed

over the enactment of Article 83 of the paragraph (1) and verse (2) Law No. 8 Year 1981 on

The Criminal Event Law (later called KUHAP) in which Section 83 of the paragraph (2)

has limited the right of the applicant to appeal to the High Court;

2. That next in the Constitutional Court Decree No. 006 /PUU-

III/2005 and the Constitutional Court Number 111PUU-V/2007 have

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

as referred to in Article 51 of the paragraph (1) of the MK Act, as follows:

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

Constitution of 1945. That the right and authority is contained in all three articles

Constitution of 1945 is Article 27 paragraph (1), Article 28D paragraph (1) and Article 28I of paragraph (2);

b. such rights and/or constitutional authority, are deemed to have been harmed

by the enactment of the Act, which the tests are being moed with. That right and

the constitutional authority of the applicant has been harmed over the enactment of Article 83

paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of the Penal Code:

(1) " Against the pre-judicial ruling in the matter referred to in

Section 79, Section 80 and Section 81 cannot be appealed ";

(2)" Excluded from the terms of the paragraph (1) is the pre-judicial ruling that

stipulating the non-termination of the investigation or prosecution, which

for it can be held final verdict to the High Court in

the legal area in question ";

c. Such rights and/or authority must be specific (special) and actual

or at least any potential that reasonable reasoning can be

is confirmed to be occurring. That the right and/or authority of the applicant is clearly

has been violated by simply giving discriminatory rights, that is

4

the public prosecutor is entitled to the Appeal (vide Section 83 of the paragraph (2)

KUHAP), whereas to The applicant is not granted the right to Appeal

(while the right to appeal under Section 83 verse (1) KUHAP is absolutely not

granted). As of Section 83, paragraph (2) "there is a special" as

the exemption provided to the investigator or the public prosecutor if

for the pre-judicial ruling is invalid for the termination of the inquiry or prosecution

it may be requested. the final verdict to the High Court. That is, instead

if on a pre-trial verdict relating to the termination of the inquiry

or the prosecution is declared "legitimate", then the judicial petitioner is not

can (Appeal) in demand for the final verdict to the High Court;

d. The causal link between the loss is referred to

by the enactment of the Act, which the tests are being asked for. The loss

experienced by the applicant is clearly a "causal verband". Because in

consideration of Judge Pra judicial at the South Jakarta District Court

is clearly unfair and unobjective in considering this case that

can we apply as follows:

1) Based on The results of the Labcream Mabes Polri Number Lab: 2547 /DTF/2001

dated October 3, 2001 have clearly concluded that the

case "proved to be a signature forgery";

There will be but a termination of the investigation of the matter performed with

publishing the Letter of Decree Number pol. S. Tap/20-B-UPI/VII/2002/Pidum

dated 4 July 2002 that decided and set a stop

investigation of felon in the name of suspect Herman Iskandar and

Ir. Willy Iskandar began on July 4, 2002 due to Criminal Tindak

that was not quite proof (P-4 Evidence);

2). Next in consideration and ruling by Justice Pra judicial

at the South Jakarta District Court the termination of the case

stated is "sah";

So that there is disagreement with the Labcream Mabes Polri Lab number:

2.47/DTF/2001 dated October 3, 2001, which was clearly

concluded that the labcream result was proven because of

"signature forgery", while the Decree of termination

5

s case by investigators with the reason "not enough evidence". But by Judge

The judicial Pra in consideration/ruling, "case terminated" with

the reason for having passed the time (expiry = veryard);

b. Likewise, Judge Pra's judicial judgment on the Court

The South Jakarta state has been mistaken for the error of counting "the veryard"

(expired) the case;

3) The Court of Justice's ruling on the Court of State South Jakarta

in its dictum is rejected by basing because of the matter

it has "veryard" or the case "has expired". Although

the subject matter in the termination of the investigation by the Polri investigator

based on the Letter of Decree Number pol. ShyTap/20-B-

UpI/V1I/2002IPidum dated July 4, 2002 was due to "not proven"

presence of a signature forgery;

4) On that basis, it needs to be given the opportunity to "Appeal" for the Prenup

The judiciary for a higher court (High Court) can

assess and disconnect the case fairly and objectively;

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

The constitutional loss will not or no longer occur;

1) On that basis, it is not sufficient or fair if only

rests on First-level Judge considerations only,

because it is not objective so that it is required to be considered by a higher court to judge consideration and rulings

Judge Pra judiciary on Jakarta State Court justly and

objective; 2) That rights constitutional as well as the fundamental rights of citizens/rights

constitutional persons are not differentiable; So is likely a false, unobjective consideration that may harm the constitutional right of the applicant. nor any other party

will not or happen again in the coming days; 3. That the applicant is an individual, a citizen of Indonesia based on the evidence

KTP by profession has met the qualification of the position

law (legal standing) and has the interest to convey the test rights

6

materiyl (judicial review) as referred to in the provisions of Article 51 of the paragraph

(1) the letter of an Act of MK regarding violation of the provisions of which

is contained in Section 83 of the paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) KUHAP (Proof P-2);

4. That some of the Articles in the Constitution of 1945 are constitutional rights

The applicant has been violated on the enactment of Article 83 of the paragraph (1) and paragraph (2)

KUHAP:

Article 27 of the paragraph (1) reads, " All citizens at the same time

in law and government and must uphold the law and

the government is with no exception"(Proof P-3a);

Article 28D paragraph (1) reads, " Every people are entitled to a recognition, warranty,

fair protection and legal certainty as well as the same treatment

before the law " (Proof of P-3b);

Article 28I paragraph (2) reads, " Everyone is entitled free of treatment that

is discriminatory on any basis and is entitled get

protection against that discriminatory treatment it " (Proof P-3c);

5. That with the provision of the provisions in

Section 83 of the paragraph (1) of the KUHAP that reads, " against the prejudicial ruling in

terms as referred to Article 79, Section 80 and Section 81 cannot

appeal ";

Related to the pre-trial ruling of the South Jakarta District Court

in Perkara Number 27 /PID/PRAP/2011/PN.JKTSEL dated 23 August 2011

as referred to in Section 83 of the paragraph (2) KUHAP that reads,

" excluded from the paragraph provision (1) is a pre-judicial ruling that

sets out no time of inquiry or prosecution termination, which for

that, may be held high court rulings in a legal section

are concerned " has become The discriminatory rules/conditions for the party

pre-trial applicants are related to the State Court ruling

which states "the legal termination of the inquiry";

By the prejudicial petitioner was declared lost then according to

the provisions of Section 83 of the paragraph (1) KUHAP, "The applicant is at all due to be closed or

unable to make an appeal" for the ruling that states

the termination of the investigation of the case. Will but be related to it

7

there are exceptions that are special rights or "privileges" that are only granted

to the investigator or the public prosecutor;

So it raises the loss for the pretrial applicant.

The loss is has taken away constitutional rights, as well as the rights-

the rights of the applicant. The right to the Appeal for the applicant has been disabled, has

repped by Article 83 of the verse (2) KUHAP, whereas to Terbeg/Investigator

is given the right to Appeal, thus contrary to the Basic Law

1945;

6. That Article a quo (Article 83 of the paragraph (2) The KUHAP) which is being treated for this test

has incurred "discrimination", as the judicial applicant is not

authorized/allowed to make legal efforts to a more

high (the appeals law effort) based on Article 83 paragraph (1) KUHAP;

7. But to the Investigator/Public Prosecuting pursuant to Article 83 of the paragraph (2) KUHAP,

"the public prosecutor/prosecution party (as requested in the Pre-judicial Court

The State Court) is granted a special right/privilege which is the right to appeal to

High Court" (to be in demand for the final verdict) to the High Court in

the area of the law in question) if "the termination of its inquiry or

the prosecution" by Judge Pra Court The First Level was declared "Invalid";

Meaning any case that General Investigator/Public Prosecutor (as

Requesting Judicial) if The state court ruling states "Not

Authorized Termination'', then the Investigator/Public Prosecutor may submit

Appeal to the High Court pursuant to Section 83 of the paragraph (2) KUHAP, while on

On 83 verses (1) each court of the Court Applicant is absolutely not able to

submit an Appeal. However, Article 83 of the paragraph (2) of the Criminal Code

"exclude" Requesting General Investigator) is granted the right to appeal

to the High Court. Of course this is "Discriminative" on the basis of the article

a quo (Article 83 of the paragraph (1) when it is associated with Article 83 of the paragraph (2)

KUHAP);

III.

8

1. That the things that have been put forth in the authority of the Constitutional Court

and the Applicant Law Occupation as described above are

are an inseparable part of this Staple Application;

2. As colonial history has proved that formation and

enforcing the Criminal Event Law (later called HIR) is the sole-

eye for the interests of the Dutch occupiers then based on consideration-

consideration it needs to be replaced by KUHAP. Generated for and by

the government of the Republic of Indonesia replaces HIR;

3. Therefore, the enforcement of the Criminal Event Law system is based on

KUHAP must be strictly tailored to basic rights and rights

the constitutional rights of an independent nation and not as an

a nation. Colonized. Thus, the application and application of the law

must be a norm (norm) system to be proved and

at stake is how the state governs its rights to be run

justly/definitely for Applied. Especially when it comes to enforcement

laws, punishments, and when giving decisions:

-Is there a criminal offense,

-Is anyone able to be blamed for committing a criminal?

or not,

-How the execution of the dropped laws

Clearly must be different when applying to the implementation of the HIR as Law

The Criminal Event when it is formed and replaced by the KUHAP applicable in

Indonesia. It is no longer a time for content, form, and

the application/application/application/application is still discriminating against which

is conspicuous and astounding because those things have usurpsed the rights

constitutions/human rights of the people;

The intent and purpose of the creation of the Criminal Event Law Act

is made-up/enforced, but still found as contained

in Section 83 of the paragraph (1) and the paragraph (2) of the KUHAP containing:

(1) " Against the pre-trial verdict in terms of respect to

Section 79, Article 80 and Article 81 cannot be appealed ";

(2) " Excluded from the terms of the paragraph (1) is the pre-judicial ruling

9

specifies not the termination of the investigation or prosecution, which

for that may be expected to be final ruling to the High Court in the area

the law is concerned ";

That The revocation/replacement of the HIR by KUHAP is

with intent and purpose in order to enforce this new event law to

prevent or eliminate discrimination.

Preventing/avoiding applying power, the judges who are not

just between the interests The government with its people, among your fellow citizens,

citizens, or between justice seekers;

This is what drives so that the 1945 Constitution has been 4 times

at best will be/will be patented with intent to protecting

and ensuring that enforcement of the constitutional rights/rights of citizens

the country of Indonesia can be protected. Thus fulfilling hope and desire

as the constitutional rights and rights of each

people are protected as the laws are confirmed in the 1945 Constitution

which reads:

Article 27 of the paragraph (1) which reads, "All citizens together

its second in law and government and shall be required to uphold

the laws and governance it is with no exception";

Article 28D the paragraph (1) reads, " Everyone is entitled to the recognition,

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

equal to the law ";

Article 28I paragraph (2) reads, " Everyone is entitled free of the treatment

which is discriminatory on any basis and entitled get

protection against that discriminatory treatment ";

The provisions of the article in the Constitution of 1945, clearly affirm

about the mutate of respect/protection over freedom basic rights

every citizen as well as a citizen of the world as rights

every human being to be held in high esteem;

Then it is reasonable, exemplary and inappropriate and unworthy of the Article

83 KUHAP that has blessed and has paralyzed the rights,

as has been given by all three articles of the Constitution of 1945 above.

10

Due to Section 83 of the Criminal Code has been adversely affected

the constitutional and the rights of the applicant;

On the paragraph (1) compiled the express sentence that reads that third

this section is on At first it had the same rights. It is equally not

may appeal to a pre-judicial ruling in order to be legally valid

the termination of the inquiry or detention as set forth in the Article

79, Article 80 and Article 81 of the KUHAP. However, in Article 83 of the paragraph (2) of the Criminal Code

there is a "exception" given, which is an investigator's privilege.

This exception is clearly discriminated. Meaning there is a "exception" i.e.:

If there is a judge's ruling in a pretrial case that sets "not

the termination of the investigation or prosecution", for that it may be requested

(by the inquiry /JPU) the final verdict to the High Court in the legal area

is concerned. Whereas if according to the pretrial judge's assessment,

valid termination (which the investigator did) according to consideration

and the pretrial judge's ruling, then the petitioner is closed to the possibility

to appeal accordingly. Section 83 of the paragraph (1) and the paragraph (2) of the Penal Code;

4. Despite the discrimination, however, the applicant continues to submit

pre-trial on 18 July 2011 to the South Jakarta District Court

with regard to the publication of the Decree of Number pol. S. Tap/20-B-UpI/VII/2002/Pidum

dated 4 July 2002 on Investigative Stops (P-4 Evidence) issued

by the Corps Reserse Polri cq of the General Criminal Reserres Directorate cq Director

Reserse General Mabes Polri Brigadier General Drs. Aryanto Suearlier, M. Sc

as Investigator (as Begged in Pra judicial);

5. Based on the verdict of Judge Pra judicial at the Jakarta District Court

South with Decree No. 27 /PID/PRAP/2011/PN.JKT.SEL dated 23

August 2011 (Buktit P-5) has dropped a prejudicial ruling with amar

The verdict is reads as follows:

PROSECUTE

- Reject the Judicial Petitioner for the whole;

- Punting the Pretrial applicant to pay a case fee of

Rp. 2,000,-(Two Thousand Rupiahs).

With the verdict of a pretrial judge who refused the plea

11

The pre-trial applicant, then indirectly by the District Court

South Jakarta "Termination Of Inquiry of the Case is declared valid".

6. a.) However, in spite of Section 83 (2) the (2) of the KUHAP have hinted/

disabling, disclosing or disclosing the right of the applicant to the Appeal, "the Applicant filed" his right to appeal by submitting the Acta

Request Appeal Number 84 /Akta.Pid/ 2011 /PN.Jak.sel dated August 26

2011 (PoE P-6) and the submission of the Memory of Appeal on September 9

2011 (Evidence P-7a) as stated in the Letter Letter.

Memory of Criminal Appeals dated 9 September 2011 (PoE P-7b) against

the ruling of the Court of State South Jakarta with the Putermination Number

27 /PID/PRAP/2011/PN.JKT SEL on August 23, 2011. Although

pursuant to Section 83 of the paragraph (2) of the Penal Code states that only the investigators

(requested in pre-trial) are entitled to appeal to the Court

High (is in demand for the final verdict to the High Court in the United States). the legal area that

is concerned) if the termination of the inquiry is stated by

The court is "invalid";

b.) Despite the right of the applicant has been disabled/pruned also given

timeout for a limited appeal is only 2 (two) weeks only, then

if not to be appealed and submitted to the Appeal Memory in the middle of

The time is in the middle of the specified time period of the Act, then the appeal time

will be exceeded and the right to Appeal is closed. Thus

all legal efforts are over/ending in terms of demanding rights that

equal to applicable law in the Republic of the Republic laws

this Indonesia. Nevertheless, even though the Act prohibits, but

the ban is discriminatory or contrary to the provisions of Article 27 paragraph (1),

Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, then the applicant remains

to apply for an appeal. at the prejudicial ruling;

c.) That our plea was not excessive because the Supreme Court

also once granted the legal effort of Rejudicial Review (subsequently called

PK) filed by the Attorney General. through verdict Number

55PK/Pid/1996 in the case of Muchtar Pakpahan, where in Article 263

KUHAP is expressly stated that the right to apply PK is

12

The defendant or its Warmaster;

Supreme Court of the Supreme Court in its legal consideration

using Section 263 of the Criminal Code and Article 21 of the Law No. 14 Year 1970

has been replaced by Act No. 48 2009 about Power

Judiciary by interpreting parties of interest in the matter

criminal is the Attorney General and Criminal Prosecutor as a possible party

filed a PK legal effort. Where exactly the interpretation is not

allowed because of the provisions of Article 21 Act No. 14 of 1970 which

has now been replaced with Law No. 48 of 2009 on

The Justice Power has been described in Its legal explanation is that

The interested parties are the Legal and the Warmen.

but a legal effort (PK) submitted by the Attorney General

it was granted by the Supreme Court, even if the party meant

the interested party is the legal and its heir;

7. That Article 83 of the paragraph (2) of the KUHAP is highly discriminatory and ironic.

As equally it is known that discrimination is injustice.

Because injustice is a threat to justice anywhere

and At any time;

So that the circumstances result in "discrimination before the law"

let alone Article 83 of the paragraph (2) of the KUHAP expressly contradictory to the sound of Article

UUD 1945 that reads as follows:

Article 27 verse (1) The 1945 Constitution that reads, " All citizens

at the same time it is the second In the law and the administration it is mandatory

uphold the law and government with no exception ";

Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution reads, " Everyone is entitled to

recognition, guarantee, protection and fair legal certainty as well

equal treatment before the law ";

Article 28I paragraph (2) The 1945 Constitution reads, " Everyone is entitled to be free of

The treatment is discriminatory over any basic and entitled

get protection against the treatment It is discriminatory to that ";

8. With the obscured of our pleas, it can recover the loss

of the constitutionality we experienced and by all citizens even every

13

the person seeking justice as the applicant's party is guaranteed by the UUD

1945 for "the right to be treated equally before the law and free of

the discriminatory treatment";

So that no more discrimination/difference of constitutional rights of all persons

in the case of submitting a legal effort (Appeals) by the party (as the pretrial applicant

judiciary) is being harmed as that of Article 83 of the paragraph (2)

KUHAP;

Thus " the right to be recognized as a person before the law in

conducting legal efforts in pre-judicial matters " is the

constitutional rights of every Indonesian citizen at once as a fundamental right

a human being unable to be reduced in circumstances and circumstances;

9. That if the provisions of this Section 83 of the Criminal Code are not repealed, it will remain

so/raises the "unrelenting" abuse of power or will

continue continuously by Polri investigators and

disabling/persisting/occurs continuously

the system of uncontrolled power for/or with intent/purpose for

disabling the constitutional rights and rights of the searchers

Justice. So that what is embed by the Constitution of 1945

to be unreached and not materiable as it should be;

10. Therefore, this Section 83 of the Criminal Code must be dissolved with revocation

in order for all parties not to be disowned by its constitutional rights and rights

its principles;

11. That according to the nature of the law construction of the criminal event is related to

the handling of settlement cases of criminal cases then between investigators

with the public prosecutor required/required Act to

cry/solve the case in a unified/not individually/unilaterally

alone as to the sound of Article 14 of the letter a, letter b, Article 110, Section 138, Section

139, and Section 30 of the paragraph (1) Act of Law Number 16 of 2004 on the Prosecutor's Office of the State of the Republic of the United States.

The Republic of Indonesia which reads the letter d Prosecutor has a duty and

authority: complementing Certain case files, for that matter may be able to do

additional before being transferred to a court that is in its implementation

coordinated with investigators. At the bottom of the line, the investigator can't.

14

terminates the investigation of the case solely, alone,

unilaterally i.e. only by the Polri only. And if it does happen that

takes place this time in Indonesia "haram law";

12. In order for the provisions/rules, the legal attempt of the upper appeal

the criminal case is related to the pretrial case

also refers to the other chapters in the KUHAP according to

Necessary boundaries, and for the sake of rights

constitutional, the fundamental rights of each person as a justice seeker are entitled-

equal rights for the parties or to remain in accordance with the event process

as it has been and on the KUHAP and on the other

Act;

13. With regard to Section 83 of the paragraph (1) and the paragraph (2) of the required KUHAP

to be amended/amended, compulsory/should be a concern for

the seeker of justice is guaranteed equal rights to the Appeal for the right

of its constitutional law. And it protects the rights of everyone. Moreover,

doubts-seekers of justice seekers at this time when lecturing

the quality, credibility and integrity of law enforcement when handling

the cases in the process of time travel from the past up to This time

illustrates the trend-negative, concern that

leads to increasingly alarming/and endangers the rights

constitutionality/of any person;

IV.

Based on the items described above, the applicant hereby pleads

if the Assembly of Justice of the Constitutional Court as a guardsman and an interpreter

supreme to the Constitution, deigned to court a plea The applicant with

the verdict is as follows:

1. Accept and grant the applicant's request;

2. Stating that the applicant is the one to have a hak/or

constitutional authority that has been harmed by the enactment of Article 83 of the paragraph

(1) and paragraph (2) of the KUHAP as it has been in conflict with Article 27 of the paragraph

(1), Section 28D paragraph (1), and Article 28I paragraph (2) of UUD 1945;

15

3. Declaring Section 83 of the paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) KUHAP, contrary to

Article 27 paragraph (1), Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 28I paragraph (2) of the Constitution of 1945;

4. Declaring Article 83 of the Criminal Code does not have a binding legal force

with all due to its law;

5. Ordering the loading of this verdict in Country News as

should be.

Or

If the Assembly of Justice of the Court argues another, please a fair ruling-

be fair (ex aequo et bono).

[2.2] weighed that in order to prove its control, the applicant

submitted the letter/writing tool that has been assigned a Proof of P-1 to

Proof of P-7 as follows:

1. Proof of P-1: Photocopy Act No. 24 of 2003 on

Constitutional Court;

2. Evidence P-2: Photocopy Act No. 8 of 1981 on Invite-

Invite the Criminal Event Law;

3. Evidence P-3a: Photocopy Article 27 paragraph (1) Basic Law of 1945;

4. Evidence P-3b: Photocopied Article 28D paragraph (1) of the Basic Law of 1945;

5. Evidence P-3c: Photocopied Article 28I paragraph (2) of the Basic Law of 1945;

6. Proof of P-4: Photocopy of the Decree of Number pol. S. Tap/20-B-UpI/VII/2002/

Pidum dated July 4, 2002 about the Investigative Stops

issued by the Polri cq Directorate of Reserres Reserse Directorate

General Crimes cq Director of the Criminal Reserses General Mabes Polri

Brigadier General Drs. Aryanto Suearlier, M. Sc as Investigator;

7. Evidence P-5: Photocopy of the pre-trial Jakarta State Court

South Number 27 /PID/PRAP/2011/PN.JKT.SEL date

August 23, 2011;

8. Evidence P-6: Photocopy Acta Request Appeals Number

84 /Akta.Pid/2011/PN.Jkt. Cell dated 26 August 2011;

16

9. Evidence P-7a: Photocopy Letter of the Receipt Receipt of Criminal Appeals dated

9 September 2011 published by the Court of Justice

South Jakarta Land;

10. Evidence P-7b: Photocopy of the Appeal of Appeal submitted by the Legal Power of Tjetje

Iskandar (Law Firm Albert His Majesty & Partners) dated

9 September 2011.

[2.3] weighed that in order to prove its control, the applicant submitted 1

(one) the expert who delivered the caption under oath at the hearing

dated August 10, 2011 and delivered the received written statement. in

Kepaniteraan on December 5, 2011 outlining things as

following:

Expert Prof. Dr. Andi Hamzah, SH. 1. Article 80 of the KUHAP is contrary to the legal system of the Indonesian criminal event

Based on this section, it may be filed pre-judicial legal termination

the investigation and prosecution. Objection to the actual investigation of the actual investigation

not the judge ' s affairs, but the public prosecutor. Based on the KUHAP, the investigator must

inform the public prosecutor the commencement of the inquiry. Even different

with other countries such as Nederland (a historical source of criminal law and events

criminal Indonesia), France and others, the notice was by letter (SPDP),

whereas in other countries is sufficient by telephone. In France (district attorney

Paris), there is a picket prosecutor to receive a notice of commencement of the inquiry

by telephone and directly giving directions). So, the rationale if it had to be

informed the public prosecutor about the start of the investigation would be if it was stopped

The investigation was told also the public prosecutor. If any of the interested parties

for example the victim or the wronged by the delik objected to

the termination of the inquiry, it should go to the public prosecutor with

the reason and the evidence, the public prosecutor requested (if in Europe)

orders investigators to continue the investigation, not to the pre-trial;

Lebih-more with the provision that the termination of prosecution by

the public prosecutor may also be submitted to the pre-trial, whereas Indonesia

adhering to opportunity principles, which are globally meaningful: " the public

17

may decide conditionally or unconditionally to make praosecution to court or not "

(the public prosecutor may decide on the unconditional terms of prosecuting

or not to prosecute the court). Termination of the prosecution under the terms

called transaction out of the court (transaction out of court), which

is widely called restorative justice;

2. Regarding Article 83 of the paragraph (1) and (2) of the Penal Code which reads: "Against the pre-

the judiciary in the matter referred to in Article 79, and Article 81 is not

may be appealed" (paragraph 1). " Excluded from paragraph (1) is the ruling

pre-trial which stipulats no matter of inquiry termination or

prosecution, which to be in demand for a final ruling to a high court

in the area of the law concerned (verse 2). If interpreted a ' contrario,

means if the pre-judicial ruling it sets out, that the termination of the inquiry

is valid, then it cannot be appealed (by the interested party). If

is interpreted as such, then there is an injustice, which means if the investigator

"insistences" to stop the investigation, may apply to a high court,

whereas if the pretrial breaks the termination The investigation is legal, then

the interested party (the aggrieved or the victim delik), cannot

request an appeal;

In fact, the criminal law and the criminal event do not know the interpretation

a ' contrario (it is only known in perdata law);

D. Hazewinkel-Suringa penalist criminal law (penalist) most famous in

Nederand, whose book became a mandatory book on the legal faculktas in Indonesia

in the fifties), there are 15 kinds of interpretations in law (other scholars

mentions only six), that is:

1. Anticipatory Interpretation (anticiperende interpretatie), called by Prof.

Oemar Seno Adji futuristic interpretation. An Act that is in

the repeal process in the House of Representatives, interpretation is no longer available. This

occurs in the case of the Pamungkas Star subversion. Case terminated when

Subversion Act is in the process of revocation in the House;

2. Creative interpretation (creatieve interpretatie);

3. Interpretation of doctrines (doctrinaire interpretatie);

4. Interpretation dogmatis (dogmatische interpretatie);

18

5. Functional interpretation (functionele interpretatie);

6. Interpretation of grammar (grammaticale interpretatie);

7. Interpretation of harmonization (harmoniserende interpretatie);

8. Historical interpretation (historische interpretatie);

9. Rational interpretation (rationele interpretatie);

10. Interpretation of the legal comparison (rechtsvergelijkende interpretatie);

11. Sociological interpretation (sociologische interpretatie);

12. Systematic interpretation (systematische intepretatie);

13. Interpretation of purpose/intent (teleologische interpretatie);

14. Traditionalistible interpretation (traditionalistische interperetatie);

15. Historical interpretation of the Act (wetshistorische intepretatie),

(D. Hazewinkel-Suringa, Inleiding tot de studie van het Nederlandse strafrecht,

voortgezet door J. Remmelink, 1989, him. 857).

Not at all called a a ' contrario.

Special to intelligence of Article 83 of the KUHAP, should be used for interpretation

rational and systematic. The provisions of the Act (criminal) must be harmonious

to each other, cannot be contradictory and contradictory, especially with

the higher provisions (UUD). Rational interpretation, the formulation of the Invite-

Invite must make sense. Systematic interpretation, law (criminal event)

is one system, there should not be a formula outside of the system. Thus, the henchmen

diinteprelation, that for justice, both the investigators/police and the parties

in the interest may appeal the prejudicial verdict of

the legal decree of the inquiry was not. An example of the application of interpretation

harmonization: Article 221 of the Criminal Code says, that the person who hides

the criminal who is in relation to blood or temporary to the third degree is not

is convicted. So, hiding in sister-in-law is not criminalised.

Based on customary law, if a divorce happens then the brother of the person who

divorces it is not in law anymore. So, if it hides his ex-in-law who has been

committed the crime he was convicted. As for BW (Burgerlijk Wetboek)

says, the divorce does not remove the periecs. One who is subject to

BW if divorced then her partner's brother is still in law. So, if she

hid her ex-in-law (who is legally in law) she wasn't

19

Recriminated. It is very unfair if a Chinese who is subject to BW is not penalised

whereas the Javanese are subject to the customary law of being convicted. Therefore,

henceforth neither be convicted of fair and harmonious as well as rational (admission

sense);

let alone if it is a Nadeak SH. (legal counsel who filed the test

constitutional article 83 of the Criminal Code), that the pretrial judge stated, that

the termination of the investigation conducted by the investigator/police is legitimate because of the case

The forgery of the signature is already verjaard (through time). Forgery marks

hands including falsification of letters, ex Article 263 of the Penal Code of prison criminal threats

six years. So under Article 78 of the paragraph (1) item 3 of the KUHP verjaard (passing

time is 12 years since the termination of the inquiry. If that is so the reason

pretrial judge, then this is called by the Dutch, the acrobatic verdict.

The termination is so blunder or foolish mistake, so it should be

rather than high court;

3. According to the expert, the DPR/Government does not intend to make the formulation of the Invite-

Invite (Article 83 of the KUHAP) it is not fair, but Article 83 of the KUHAP is wrong

redaction. It should be the words ... "set not a termination

inquiry.." to " specifies the legal termination of the inquiry;

4. Dear, the Draft KUHAP that has removed the contradictions in

KUHAP compiled for 10 years (1999-2009) which has been submitted by

Tim to Minister Andi Mattalatta in 2009 and has been sent to Sekneg,

before being sent to the DPR, taken back by Minister Patrialis Akbar and

memetised for two years. The opportunity to reform the invite-

criminal invitation and a missing criminal event;

[2.4] weighed that against the applicant's request, Government

at the hearing of 17 November 2011 passing the verbal captions which in

outlines the following:

Legal Occupation (Legal Standing) Applicant

Relating regarding the legal position of the applicant, the Government is submitting

fully to the Assembly of Justice of the Court of Justice. Constitution to consider

20

and assess it, whether the applicant has a legal position or not to

apply for Section 83 of the paragraph Test (1), and paragraph (2) of the Act

The Legal Event Law (subsequently called KUHAP);

Government Description

Against the Applicant Control of Section 83 (1), and paragraph (2) KUHAP

contrary to the provisions of Article 27 paragraph (1), Section 28D paragraph (1), and Article 28E

paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, the Government is conveying description as follows;

1. KUHAP opened a judicial institution in order to examine and

cut off the legal or illegal arrest, detention, discontinuation of the investigation,

or termination of prosecution. The pretrial was submitted in the Court

The country. This provision is intended to guarantee the execution, arrest,

detention, termination of the inquiry, or termination of the prosecution carried out

in accordance with the laws of the law;

2. Section 83 of the paragraph (2) of the legal or legal termination of the inquiry

or prosecution, may the appeal be as a control over

the enforcement mechanism of the event carried out by the investigator against

termination of the prosecution or the public prosecutor's termination of the inquiry

and not to interfere with each other's affairs

institutional. These rights are therefore only limitatively given to

the investigator and the public prosecutor alone, not given to the suspect or

third party;

3. In addition, Article 38 of the paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code is also not intended to limit

the wishes of the seeker of justice, but it is intended to

realize a quick event and realize legal certainty in a time

relative Short. Because in Article 83 of the paragraph (2), the appeals process in court

height is the last attempt, and the final, as well as the unknown attempts of cassation pre

the judiciary to the Supreme Court;

4. That against the applicant ' s right to be able to submit a pretrial to

the South Jakarta District Court for its inquiry is described as

in the Order of the Police Number S. tab/20-B uPL-VII/2001/Pidum,

July 4, 2002, regarding the termination of the investigation has been secured by Article 80