2

I. The authority of the Constitutional Court 1. The applicant pleads that the Constitutional Court (MK) performs

testing against Article 1 of the 26 and the number 27 juncto Section 65 juncto

Section 116 of the paragraph (3) and paragraph (4) juncto Section 184 of the paragraph (1) the letter a Invite-

Invite Number 8 Year 1981 on Criminal Event Law (KUHAP)

against Article 1 of the paragraph (3) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution;

2. The provisions of Article 24C paragraph (1) of the Constitution of 1945 juncto Article 10 of the paragraph (1) letter a

Act No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court (Act

MK), mention that one of the authority of the Constitutional Court

is to do testing legislation against the Act

Basic State of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945 (Constitution 1945);

3. Article 7 of the Law Number 10 of the Year 2004 on the Establishment

Regulation of the Invitation, declaring that hierarchically

the position of the Constitution of 1945 is higher than the Act. Because

that, any provision of the Act should not be contradictory to

Constitution of 1945 (constitutie is de hoogste wet). If there is a provision in

the Act as opposed to the 1945 Constitution, then the provisions

it can be moved to be tested through the testing mechanism

Undang-Undang;

4. Based on these things above, the applicant argued that

The Constitutional Court of authority checks and breaks the plea

testing this legislation.

II. Legal standing (legal standing) applicant 1. That Article 51 of the paragraph (1) of the MK Act says that "The applicant is

the party who considers the rights and/or its constitutional authority

is harmed by the law", which in the letter a

mentions " the individual of the country. "Indonesia". Further in

The explanation of Article 51 of the verse (1) is said to be "right

constitutional" is "the rights set forth in the Basic Law

of the Republic of Indonesia of Indonesia in 1945".

2. That it relates to this request, the applicant confirms that

The applicant has constitutional rights set up in the 1945 Constitution,

that is if it is stated as a suspect entitled to obtain

the treatment accordingly. due process of law as a consequence

3

of the establishment of the State of Indonesia as a legal state,

as set out in Article 1 of the paragraph (3); and the right of recognition,

the guarantee, protection, and certainty of fair law as well as the treatment that

equal to the law, as set out in Section 28D paragraph (1);

3. That the applicant assumes the constitutional rights of the applicant set

in the 1945 Constitution as described in the number 2 above, it has been

aggrieved by the enactment of the Act

No. 8 Year 1981 of the Act of Law. The Law of the Criminal Events Act

(KUHAP) (later called Act 8/1981), in particular Article 1 of the 26

and the number 27 is connected to Article 65 juncto Section 116 of the paragraph (3) and

paragraph (4) juncto Section 184 of the paragraph (1) A letter. The complete sound of the article-

The section is as follows:

Article 1 of the figure 26 " The witness is the person who can provide the information for the benefit

the inquiry, prosecution and the judiciary of the matter criminal he

listen to himself, he sees himself and he naturally himself ";

Article 1 number 27 " The witness stand is one of the evidence in the criminal case that

is a description of the witness regarding a criminal event which he

hears for himself, he sees himself and he naturally himself by calling the excuses

of that knowledge "

Article 65 " The suspect or defendant is entitled to attempt and file

a witness and or a person who has special expertise to provide

a favorable description for him "

Section 116 paragraph (3) In examination of the suspect is asked if he intends to hear it

a witness that can be favorable to him and when there is then it

noted in the news of the event.

Section 116 of the paragraph (4) In terms of as referred to in paragraph (3) the mandatory investigator calls

and examine the witness;

4

Section 184 paragraph (1) The valid proof tool is:

a. Witness description;

4. That at the time of submitting this request, the applicant is status as

The suspect in alleged criminal corruption who has been assigned is based on

The Investigator Order of the Investigations Director of the Young Attorney General Tindak

Special Crimes Number Print-79/F. 2/Fd.1/06/2010, June 24, 2010,

violates Section 2, Section 3, and Section 12 of the letter i Law No. 31 of 1999

juncto Act Number 20 Year 2001 juncto Section 55 paragraph (1) 1st Book

Legal Act Criminal (Evidence P4). The applicant is alleged to have

file a criminal corruption "fee of access fee and acceptance fee

The State is Not Tax (PNBP) on the Legal Agency Administration System

The Department of Law and Human Rights RI". Director of Inquiry on the Attorney General

Young Tindak Special Criminal, Attorney General, Arminsyah, had

deliver the press information to the public on 29 June 2009

that the penalty threat imposed on the applicant is

"sentence of a lifetime" (Evidence P5). This statement was even delivered

to the public before the applicant himself was called to be examined by

Investigator. The applicant argues that this press description is a part of

A Attorney General's opinion-raising that can conjure the petitioner;

5. That the applicant considers the designation of a suspect a criminal offence

corruption with the maximum sentence threat of life imprisonment

is a very serious and tendenise that concerns the name

well, harkat, and dignity The applicant and the entire family of the petitioner.

With an apology to the Assembly of Justice of the Constitutional Court

Your Honor, let the supplicant convey that the applicant is

a Master of the Law of the Law of the State of the Faculty of Law University

Indonesia, academia, and politician who was once a member of the Board

People's Representative, People's Consultative Assembly, twice being

Minister of Justice and Human Rights, one time being the Minister

The Secretary of State of the Republic of Indonesia, and various other public offices.

The applicant also It is known that Indonesian people have officially become

candidates for President of the Republic of Indonesia and have been passed by the plenary meeting

The People's Consultative Assembly in the 1999 General Assembly.

5

The applicant is also widely known as the former Chairman and now as

Chairman of the Syura Assembly Party of the Moon Star, a party that is assigning

Islam;

6. That if the applicant was sentenced a day to a day by indictment

in violation of Article 2, Section 3, Article 12, and Article 12 of the Law Number

31 Year 1999 on the Criminal Code Corruption juncto Act

No. 20 Year 2001, then career The applicant's political journey will be

closed with the serta-peta for all eternity. So many invite-

invite in the State of the Republic of Indonesia which requires a person who

once a criminal with a penalty threat over five years, he

is not allowed to occupy any state office. also.

Do not run for President, running for

the head of the village has been banned by the Act. The fate of the applicant

would have been far worse than the fate of former Deputy Prime

Malaysian Minister Anwar Ibrahim, who despite being punished with punishment

prison for 8 years, but when free, he remained allowed

established a new political party and then re-elected again as

a member of Parliament, and is now the Chairman of the Dissenters (Opposition) in

The Malaysian Parliament;

7. That is based on the Investigative Warrant Director of the Prosecutor's Office

Young Great Criminal Number Print-79/F. 2/Fd.1/06/2010,

on June 24, 2010, the applicant has been repeatedly called to be examined

as a Suspect with various calling letters and last

is SPT-2915/F. 2/Fd.1/06/ 2010 dated

14 October 2010 (Evidence P6). Every time an inspection lasts dozens

the print and electronic media reporters in and out of the country cover it in

The Supreme Prosecutor's Bundar Building, which indicates that with the case

This, the applicant has now been in the spotlight public both domestic and

international (Evidence P7). This case has been a concern and a concern of

various international organizations, including Asian-African Legal

Consultative Organization headquartered in New Delhi and International

Bar Association based in London. Some members of parliament in

ASEAN countries also come to Jakarta to ask questions-

ikhwal is the case on the applicant;

6

8. That as a good citizen, the applicant complies with the law

throughout its implementation and the legal norms used are not

contrary to the higher and conflicting legal norms

with universal moral norms. The applicant was present fulfilling the call

Investigator, although when the applicant rejected the validity of Hendarman

Supandji as Attorney General and did the resistance against him,

and also against the President of the Republic of Indonesia which raised it,

among other things through this Court;

9. That only twice the applicant may not be present in the examination

for valid reasons, namely one suffering from pain (dental surgery and

mouth), and one more hindrous due to the collision of time with

case hearing Act No. 16 of the Year

2004 on the Prosecutor of the Republic of Indonesia, which the applicant filed in

The Constitutional Court of Indonesia. The two legitimate reasons have been delivered

officially by mail and can be understood as well as received by the Investigator.

During the examination, the applicant has shown a stance

the briefcase. There is no question of the Investigator who does not answer.

But if there is constitutional rights the applicant is violated by

the Investigator and the Attorney General's apparatus, then the applicant's right to

conduct the resistance to the The waiver of constitutional rights. Step

This applicant is in line with the Applicant Commitment to participate

fostering the Republic of Indonesia's Legal State;

10. That all forms of resistance, the petitioners are doing through the legitimate and constitutional means, including a material test request

against the Act now that the applicant is once again

to the Court The Constitution. As such, the applicant rejects the fundraising

opinion by while the party, that the resistance is in the way

that is lawful and concise as an "unethical" act and even

" is lawful all ways to be spared in. bui " as pronounced two

an intellectual figure who by some is considered an intellectual

influential in the country, Professor Franz Magnis Suseno and

Professor Azyumardi Azra (Proof of P8);

11. That during the vetting process, the Head of the Information Center

The Law (Kapuspenkum) the Attorney General has announced to

7

the public that the Investigator has called and requested the description of 27 witnesses

that all incriminates the applicant. A number of experts are required

to clarify the case against the applicant has also been

and is being examined the Attorney General. Amid the screening that

is underway, the Attorney General has announced that from

the results of the checks have been conducted, they have obtained the tool

sufficient evidence to submit the applicant as the defendant to the

court (Evidence P9);

12. That the applicant argued was the Investigator's authority to

call and examine the witnesses and experts who at his point would

incriminate the petitioner to prove their alleged. However

also is the right of the applicant as a Suspect to defend

self and deny the applicant's incriminating testimony, among other

in the manner of bringing up favorable witnesses, which

according to The reasonable consideration of the applicant may deny or

abort the description of the incriminating witnesses called and

be checked over the Investigator initiative. The applicant is of course, according to the event law

in effect, not in a position that can judge or

convey any objection also to those of the witnesses who

were summoned and examined by the Investigator;

13. That otherwise, the applicant argues that the process of inquiry

should be done fairly and equating to upholding

the constitutional rights of the applicant guaranteed by the Base Act,

including recognition against the universally applicable principle,

asas the presumption of innocence. The examination will

take place fairly and equates and respect for the asas

the innocence of innocence will be realized, if the suspect's right to request

to the Investigator to call and examine the witnesses who

benefiting the applicant is met by Investigators, without Investigators

has the right to judge and express the objection of whether the witness-

witnesses deemed favorable by the applicant are relevant or not

with the case. If the applicant assessees the favorable witness

it is completely unfavorable, even detrier, then for what

the applicant asks that the witness be called and checked;

8

14. That, as the Investigator has the freedom, it even has the right

to use forced summoning against anyone they

make as a damning witness, then the applicant as

The suspect, for the sake of justice and the balance, should also be entitled

to request called and checked favorable witnesses.

Investigators are not entitled to judge and convey objections

against whom witnesses the applicant considers as a The witness who

benefited it. Investigators also had no right to refuse by reason

that the witness who, according to the applicant, would benefit from it, would be

harms the applicant. Investigators are obliged to call and check

Those witnesses are beneficial to it. The principle of balance in

checks are guaranteed in the International Covenant of Civil Rights and

UN Politics which has been ratified by the Government by the Act

No. 11 of 2005;

15. That in a Investigator examination has asked the applicant,

whether the applicant is willing to hear the witnesses and experts who can

benefit the applicant, as per the provisions of Article 65 juncto Section 116

paragraph (3) KUHAP. The applicant has answered that question with

saying "yes" and the Investigator noted the answer in the Event News

Examination (BAP). The applicant through his legal power then

relayed in writing the names of experts and witnesses who

benefited the applicant, and asked the Investigator to call

and examine the benefits and witnesses for the benefit of the prosecution. such,

pursuant to the provisions set out in Article 65 and Section 116 of the paragraph (3) and

paragraph (4) Act 8/1981. Witnesses favorable to the applicant

as stated in the letter the Legal Advisory signed

The applicant is Megawati Sukarnoputri, H.M. Jusuf Kalla, Kwik Kian Gie,

and Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (Evidence P10);

16. The applicant is aware that asking for favorable witnesses and

to be invoked is the right of the applicant, and the Investigator is obliged to call

those favorable witnesses, given Article 116 of the paragraph (4) of the Act

8/1981 contain The rules are imperative. Of course the witnesses

the benefits are the witnesses, which, according to the consideration

The applicant has something to do with the criminal case that is being held

9

to the applicant. The request brought a favorable witness

that, according to M. Yahya Harahap, should be done with consideration

a reasonable one, not with the intent to slow the course

examination, or be done with bad iktikad to play-

play a check (Yahya Harahap: Question Problem and

Application of the KUHAP, Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, Second Edition, 2001, matter. 138).

According to Harahap, if there is such a bad ad, for example, the suspect

asked to be called and checked 100 favorable witnesses who

difficult to find where the address is. While under consideration

a reasonable one, 100 favorable witnesses it had nothing to do

with the case, it was bad faith to play-play

such a check could abort the Investigator ' s obligation to

calling and checking them as set out in Section 65

juncto Section 116 of the paragraph (4) KUHAP;

17. That in fact, the applicant has not submitted 100 witnesses who

benefited the hard ones to look for where he is. Fourth

A favorable witness who the applicant asks to be called and checked

that his address is clear and easy to look for. According to the reasonable

of the applicant, the four favorable witnesses are indeed

relevant to explain the various matters related to the alleged followup

the criminal corruption imposed upon the applicant. Three of the four witnesses

the auspicious ones who asked for it (Jusuf Kalla, Kwik Kian Gie,

and Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono) were once together with the applicant

being the Cabinet Minister of the National Union led by President

Abdurrahman Wahid. Megawati Sukarnoputri when it became the Vice

President. Jusuf Kalla became Minister of Industry and Commerce that

often complained of slowing the legalization of the company so that

hinting investment in industrial and trade fields. Susilo Bambang

Yudhoyono when it became Minister of Mines and Energy that also

interests with investments through various companies

Indonesian laws that want to be established by both inner and external entrepreneurs

Country. Kwik Kian Gie at that time was Menko Ecuin who was in charge of the

answer to coordinate the acceleration efforts of the national economic recovery

and to deal with the cooperation with the IMF and the World Bank. The applicant as

10

The General Chairman of the Moon Star Party, signed a nomination letter

Susilo Bambang Yudhyono as the candidate for President of Indonesia to the Election Commission

General, so that he qualified to be a candidate. Susilo Bambang

Yudhoyono was later elected President and the applicant to be

The Minister of State Secretary in the United Indonesia Cabinet (KIB I) who

was in his position;

18. That the applicant alleged that the applicant, i.e. corruption

cost aksess fee PNBP Sisminbakum, was not solely an action

private, but attached to the position of the applicant who was when the alleged followup

the criminal was It is in the position of the applicant as Minister

Justice and human rights of the Republic of Indonesia. As such, the applicant

argues that asking for the presence of favorable witnesses

that is, that of the former minister, former Vice President and even President

is something reasonable and is not making it up. There is no need

supposition that if the President is asked to be a favorable witness,

then it would be a precedent, later any suspect would ask

the president was presented to be a favorable witness. A Bakery

motorcycle in Makassar hit people on the road to death and

asked President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to be a witness that

benefited, certainly not a reasonable request. A request like

this, is required to be rejected by the Investigator as it can be qualified as

foretold request and bad faith-based to

complicate the course of the examination;

19. That despite the reason of the cross, the applicant opined that

all four of the requested names were called and examined as witnesses who

benefited it, due to his duties and duties at that time, indeed

had a connection with the The criminal offence will be to

The applicant. All four favorable witnesses were present at the hearing

the cabinet led by President Abdurrahman Wahid in early May

2000, when the Government listened to the proposal of the National Economic Council

led Emil Salim. One of the things discussed in the hearing

is the Government slowness, in this case the Department of Law

and the Invitation in the establishment of a limited liability establishment

(PT), which resulted in the Government's volunteer Indonesia speeds up the process

11

National economic recovery due to the crisis in 1997. Governments that

in cooperation with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Bank

The world is in the framework of crisis handling and economic recovery, as well

criticizing that slowdown. The IMF and the World Bank argued there would be no way

there would be an economic recovery if there was no investment. While

investment is hampered as the Government is slow to set up its establishment

perseroan. In Singapore, it took only one day.

In Malaysia and Hong Kong it was only two days away. While in Indonesia

take more than a year without any certainty;

20. That the four names above were also present in the cabinet hearings

when President Abdurrahman Wahid gave a directive that

given the absence of APBN post 1999/2000 to build the network

information technology to accelerate process of endorsement of the company

, then the development of the network was submitted only to the private

to make an investment to build it. Finally, Minister

Judiciary and Human Rights decided that the information technology network

was built with the Built, Operate, and Transfer (BOT) agreement for 10

years. The project was completed and operated in January 2001

which was inaugurated by Vice President Megawati Sukarnoputri. In Letter

of Intent Government to the IMF on May 21, 2000, which among others

signed by Kwik Kian Gie, Indonesian Government posited

commitment that the Government will address the problem delay

authorization of the company (company registration) within a year

(Proof P11). It turns out that the delay problem was already resolved

The government in less than a year. This is the first

E-Government project in the homeland that is considered a success in

giving the public service and obtaining standard recognition

international ISO 9001-2000 (Evidence P12);

21. That the economic impact of the acceleration of the endorsement of the company was indeed

is very great for the country. For 7 years accelerated through

a network of information technology built and operated by the private

it has more than 6000 new companies passed for the sector

industry, services, and mining only, not yet

and other sectors. In those seven years, from this sector

12

only, the Central Bureau of Statistics reported that the state gained value

added revenue of 958 trillion rupiah, with the workforce

absorbed as much as 4.7 million people (Evidence P 13). This figure is far beyond

the cost the Government used in dealing with the 1997 economic crisis,

which, according to Finance Minister Budiono's report in the Cabinet Session

Gotong Royong (2002), was 632 trillion rupiah. The Attorney General

with his own count stated the cost of fee Sisminbakum

which was not incorporated into the state coffers, so it has caused

a state loss of 420 billion rupiah. This number is an income

gross of all applicants authoring the company through network services

Sisminbakum information technology for 7 years, not a net profit

that private company;

22. That the Minister of Law and Human Rights Andi Mattalata, in his letter to

the Minister of Finance on 27 November 2008 had asked for the funds

an additional budget of 10 billion rupiah to finance the operation

Sisminbakum is only for one month (December) 2008 only. This request

was submitted by Minister Mattalata after all Sisminbakum equipment was seized

by Investigator the Attorney General for the use of evidence, and the accounts

PT SRD on Danamon Bank and BNI were frozen at the request

The Attorney General. The Department of Law and Human Rights borrowed

using the seized evidence must bear its own whole

Sisminbakum 's operational costs, which the Minister' s request

Mattalata amounted to 10 billion rupiah The moon. With this number,

then the APBN fund that will be used by the Department of Law and Human Rights

for 7 years (84 months) for the operating cost of Sisminbakum is 840

billion rupiah. This figure is not yet calculated how much the investment fee

builds on the project if it is self-worked by the Government. It was clear

it was clear that the state money used was double the size of

the alleged state loss that the Attorney General said was 420

billion rupiah, as the money was not made available as PNBP. While

BPKP after conducting an investigative audit stated it could not

conclude whether there is an element of state loss or not in the case

this;

13

23. That throughout the understanding of the applicant, the project built with

the BOT system, whose entire capital of development and operation

was handed over to the private, was unlikely to be a fee that was in place

the country levied. as a PNBP. The country's advantage is from its button

the public service, and its inclusion of all project assets to the country

after the BOT agreement expires. While on private levies by private

it is taxed, not entirely taken state into acceptance

the country is not a tax (PNBP). There are dozens, maybe even hundreds of projects

BOT all over the motherland, but Sisminbakum is the only BOT

considered by the Attorney General as corruption. The applicant wants

showing that the entire land belongs to the state in Senayan and Kemayoran

in the work of the Government, in this case the Secretariat of State, with

the BOT system with the private parties. Similarly, some toll roads in

all of the homeland, including some container ports;

24. That Sisminbakum was enacted through Decree 4 Ministers

Judiciary, namely Pemapplicant, Baharuddin Lopa, Marsilam Simanjuntak, and

Hamid Awaludin. The Minister's decision on the applicant is invalid

one legally valid form of law,

as set in Law No. 10 of the Year 2004 on

The Establishment of the Promulgitation Ordinance. But later on

when Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono became President, the implementation

The Sisminbakum was enhanced by legislation, namely the Invite-

Invite Number 40 Year 2007 on the Limited Perseroan (next

called Act 40/2007). Article 9 of the law reads " For

obtaining the Minister ' s Decision on the enactment of the legal entity

the company as referred to in Article 7 of the paragraph (4), co-founder-

same as applying for services through the services of the law. system information technology

the administration of the legal body electronically to the Minister. " (Evidence P14).

The Legal Body Administration System (Sisminbakum) enacted

with this legislation, if the applicant reads carefully Risalah

The bill for the Bill of Limited Perseroan in the House (page 428)

is the same as Sisminbakum the applicant and the three Ministers

Justice and other human rights did before with the Decision

The minister, who was considered the Attorney General for that corruption. Petitioner

14

argues, if the applicant as acting Minister as law

maker must be punished for making the Minister's Decision, then President

Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and the entire House of Representatives 2004-2009

as law maker the 40/2007 Law maker on Limited Perseroan as well

must be punished;

25. That when Sisminbakum was enacted with legislation,

The applicant is no longer a minister, both the minister of justice and human rights

and the Minister of State Secretaries. The Minister of Law and Human Rights at the time

was held by Andi Mattalata. The question that is always on the mind

The applicant is, in case that the Sisminbakum is indeed corruption,

why did the President and the House strengthen his treatment with

the legislation? All arguments, all legal documents like this have

The applicant gave to the Investigator, but all were rejected with

the reasons are not relevant. As such, the applicant argues that it should be the

Minister, the Vice President, and the President who both decided

that policy, requested in his interest as a favorable witness to

clarify the matter. The description of Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono who

signed the enactment of Law 40/2007 also needs to be heard. What is the reason

The president increased the legal norm of the Sisminbakum applicable law that

is accused by the Attorney General as corruption of it with the Invite-

Invite? Sisminbakum began to be ushered in due to a fee access fee.

corruption by the Attorney General on 31 October 2008, while the Act

40/2007 was passed by President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono on 16 August

2007;

26. That the applicant argued, the testimony of Megawati Sukarnoputri and

Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono would benefit the petitioner. They

is expected to explain the underlying problem to

The applicant, which is why the private-picked fee access fee

builds and operates an information technology network.

"Sisminbakum" with the BOT system is not levied as Acceptance

The state is not a tax, so according to the Investigator it has harmed

the state finances and the applicant are responsible as the perpetrators of the followup

criminal corruption. However, according to Article 2 of the Law No. 20

in 1997 of PNBP (Evidence P 15), the authority of the authority set the type

15

The service and magnitude of the PNBP fare is not a ministerial authority

technical, in this case the Minister of Justice and human rights, but is

the President's authority by means through the Regulation

Government (PP), on the proposal of the Minister of Finance. To the extent of the knowledge

The applicant, Megawati Sukarnoputri during his tenure

once included the cost of Sisminbakum's fee access as PNBP;

27. That President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has four published

Government Regulation (PP), namely PP Number 75 of 2005, PP Number 19

Year 2007, PP Number 82 of 2007) that changed various types

of service and magnitude The rates that the PNBP charges apply at

The Department of Justice and Human Rights (now the Ministry of Law and Human Rights) and

never enter the cost of access to the use of information networks

that are built and privatized (Sisminbakum) It's the PNBP.

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono just established that access fee

as PNBP through PP Number 38 of 2009 dated 3 June 2009 (Evidence

P 16). The PP is published after the former General of the General Legal Administration (AHU)

Prof Dr Romli Atmasasmita was convicted by the Jakarta District Court

The South violates Article 3 of the Law No. 31 of 1999 juncto

Act Number 20 in 2001, which is to abuse

the authority divides the Department of Justice Employees ' cooperative money

(KPPDK) with the General Directorate of AHU. The verdict was not yet inkracht

for now he is awaiting the Supreme Court case of the case;

28. That the applicant argued, if Megawati Sukarnoputri and Susilo

Bambang Yudhoyono described his testimony that before the year

2009, Sisminbakum ' s access fee was not PNBP, hence the caption it would

benefit the applicant as a Suspect. If the fee access fee

not the PNBP should be levied the Department of Justice and

human rights, but rather levied by the private build and

operate it according to the BOT Agreement and the levy is imposed

Tax (PPn), hence the assumption of the applicant as a criminal offender

corruption, is legally unwarranted. The intended

to the applicant as a suspect or a defendant later, according to

the applicant's estimate, indeed exists, but the court will assess

that the deed is not a criminal (ontslaag van allei rechtsvervolging).

16

Thus, there is still hope for the applicant to be free from

the threat of a life imprisonment due to alleged corruption charges

the applicant has done;

29. That in fact, the applicant's request to call and

examine all four favorable witnesses has been rejected

openly by the Investigator Andi Herman and delivered to the public

(Evidence P18). The rejection was later confirmed to the public by

The Acting Acting (Plt) Attorney General Darmono, the Attorney General of the Young Tindak

Special Crimes (Jampidsus) M. Amari and Head of the Information Center

The Law (Kapuspenkum) the Attorney General Babul Khoir Harahap and loaded

in various national print and electronic media and press in the areas

(Evidence P19). The reason for their rejection at the point-of-point of

their assessment that the beneficial witnesses that the applicant

request to be called and checked under the provisions of Article 65, juncto Article

116 verses (3) and verse (4) KUHAP is not relevant to the inquiry

the case of the applicant is alleged. Attorney General's top brass

it even explicitly says that the witness is favorable that

The applicant asks that it does not meet the criteria as a witness, which is the person who

may refer to a criminal offence he " heard. Alone, see

yourself and experience it yourself ". Jampidsus Amari even said

that the auspicious witnesses who asked for it "pal-most

would say"testimmonium de auditu"that is" a person, a person says ".

That kind of stuff he says" doesn't. can be used as a proof tool

at the court hearing " (Evidence P20);

30. That because of the request to call the witnesses who

benefited it had we done over and over again, but still no

being met, then two of them, namely H.M. Jusuf Kalla (Proof

P20) and Kwik Kian Gie (Evidence P21) finally on his own initiative

has delivered a written description of their testimony

about various things related to Sisminbakum, based on what

they are aware of. The caption has been delivered to the Investigator

The Attorney General. The applicant has requested that the second description

the suspect be included in the case file, and again requested

for them to be called and checked to be loaded in Event News

17

Examination (BAP), as their willingness to be mentioned

is firmly in the description. The request was contained in the BAP

on the inspection of the applicant on 29 November 2010. However, the applicant

has not yet received any certainty whether the caption would be contained in

case files or not. The applicant also did not get an answer that

for sure, whether the willingness of H.M. Jusuf Kalla and Kwik Kian Gie to be examined

and loaded in the BAP will be met by the Attorney General of the Attorney General;

31. That the applicant's right to ask for the hearing of the witnesses

that is deemed to benefit the applicant under the provisions of Article 65

juncto Section 116 of the paragraph (3) and paragraph (4) Act 8/1981, and rejected by the Investigator

and the Attorney General's top brass, clearly harming the right

the constitutional applicant guaranteed by the Constitution of 1945. The reason for rejection

they were apparently based on the provisions of Article 1 of the 26

KUHAP about "witness" and provisions of Article 1 of 27 Acts 8/1981 on

"witness statements" when connected to the provisions of Article 65 juncto

articles 116 verse (3) and (4) as well as Section 184 of paragraph (1) of the Act 8/1981.

Kalaulah witnesses qualified as people who "view themselves, hear

alone and experience a criminal event", then there

odds that Megawati, Kwik Kian Gie, Jusuf Kalla, and Susilo

Bambang Yudhoyono did not meet that qualification. While

"witness description" qualised as a description of the person who "saw

himself, heard alone, and experienced himself" a criminal offense that

happened, then all four did not see for himself,

hearing for yourself or experiencing the alleged "corruption" of the alleged

The applicant did. If so- quod non -- it is understandable

that Jampidsus Amari said that "their captions do not exist

for use, and cannot be used as evidence in court". Whereas,

it can still be regrettable, how extensive the coverage of the meaning of a witness

to be qualified "sees for itself, hears its own and experiences

itself". Because, in the end the court was also in charge

considering it was ten aanzien van het recht;

32. The four favorable witnesses, namely Megawati Sukarnoputri,

Jusuf Kalla, Kwik Kian Gie, and Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, were present in

the early cabinet hearings of May 2000 at the State Palace, Merdeka Road

18

North Number 1, Jakarta. Kwik Kian Gie signed Letter of Intent

with the IMF on 17 May 2000 at the Menko Ecuin Office, Field Road

East Fort Number 1, Jakarta. While a corruption criminal that

allegedly conducted the applicant begins with meetings until the marker-

hands and up to the inauguration of Sisminbakum in October 2000

and January 2001, all of them occur in the Department of Justice. Justice and human rights

Rasuna Said Road, Jakarta. So there is a difference locus delicti and

tempus delicti between the two events. Even though the witnesses who

benefited it did not "see for themselves, hear themselves and

experience themselves" the alleged crimes that the applicant did, but

their description of everything related to policy

The Government and the PNBP designation are critical and relevant to

be heard. It is possible that the judge can be viewed by the judge as knowing something by "looking at it, hearing

alone and experiencing it himself" staatsrechtelijk and

administratiefrechtelijk?;

33. That, however, was denied the request by Investigator

to listen to these favorable witnesses, and

likely to be denied their description as valid proof tool

as set. in Article 184 of the paragraph (1) of the letter 8/1981 has

harms the constitutional rights of the applicant to be treated fairly

in the presence of the law. Therefore, please keep the supplicator

testing against the rules set out in Section 1 of 26 and

27 juncto Section 65 juncto Section 65 juncto Section 116 paragraph (3) and (4) jo

Section 184 of the paragraph (1) the letter of the Act 8/1981 is referred to. This is seen as necessary

to avoid the multi-interpretation nature that may result in

legal uncertainty (rechtsonzekerheid) of the rules conceived by

the provisions of the section are referred to;

34. That the constitutional loss was raised above, actually

not only has happened to the applicant, but it may have been adverse

so many people who have been forced to have to languish inside

prison. Because of their request to the Investigator so that witnesses who

benefit from being called and examined have been rejected by definition

witnesses as described in Article 1 of 26 and the number 27 Act

19

8/1981. A suspect or a defendant pleads to be called

and examined some as a favorable witness, because

a suspect or defendant denies a cage or an accusation with

suggesting an alibi, failing Proving his alibi because the witnesses who were

benefiting are not the ones who "view themselves, hear themselves

and experience themselves" the crimes committed by the suspect or

the defendant.

35. That, for example, someone named Ahmad, was suddenly arrested by police

on a charge of robbing and killing the owner of a gold shop on the Market

New Friday afternoon 22 October 2010 around maghrib. There were ten witnesses

who claimed to have seen Ahmad commit robbery and murder

it was. Ahmad's gun was left in the store. Ahmad's fingerprints were also

found there. If it had been this way, Ahmad would have been out of the way

facing the police. But Ahmad denies committing a robbery and

murder. On Friday afternoon 22 October 2010 he became the priest of prayer

maghrib in Mesjid Pondok Indah and thereafter gave kultum to

jama'ah. Ahmad asked the police for the mosque's caretaker and some

the worshipers who heard the pitch were examined as witnesses that

benefited from supporting his alibi. But investigators

declined with irrelevant reasons, because the witnesses who

benefited it did not "see for themselves, hear themselves and

experience themselves" the robbery and murder that Ahmad did in

The New Market, Because at the time of the robbery and the murders happened,

they were in Pondok Indah. If the definition of a witness like this, almost

can be confirmed that Ahmad will be punished, perhaps even with punishment

dead. Ahmad would be a victim of the arbitrariness of the apparatus

law enforcement and being treated unfairly and unjust. As

is said to be O.C. Kaligis in his doctoral dissertation at the University of Padranks,

in fact, to file a favorable witness not

alone is often rejected by the Investigators, but often anyway. Scared by

Investigators, so witnesses like that fail to be called and checked.

(O.C. Kaligis, Legal Protection of the Rights of the Suspect and

Criminal, Bandung: PT Alumni, 2006, pp. 249-250);

20

36. That the definitions of the witness and the description were formulated in Article 1 of the figures

26 and the number 27 has led to arbitrariness and

encourages the law enforcement apparatus to apply the law with

in violation of constitutional rights. the suspects or the accused, which resulted in

innocent people, let alone those poor and stupid,

forced to go to prison, prison criminal for life,

and even forced to serve death sentences. Circumstances such as this

are terrible to occur in the State of the Republic of Indonesia.

In the experience of the applicant as Minister of Justice and human rights that

often exit conduct inspections to various institutions

The applicant in the entire homeland, the applicant has found dozens

inmates of murder and robbery stories that

they are not actually murderers and robbers, but they are not

may present favorable witnesses as set in

Article 65 and Section 116 of the paragraph (3) and verse (4) Act No. 8 Year 1981

on KUHAP. They are ignorant, innocent and poor, so unable to afford

to bring a persistent legal advisor to defend them.

They are treated arbitrtly by the law enforcement apparatus

his own people, not the law enforcement of the Nation Netherlands in the

occupation first;

37. That refers to the Constitutional Court of Justice since the termination

No. 006 /PUU-III/2005 dated 31 May 2005 and Putermination Number 11 /PUU-

V/2007 dated September 20, 2007 and subsequent rulings,

it turns out that the loss of rights and/or constitutional authority

as in section 51 paragraph (1) the MK Act must meet 5 (five)

terms, that is:

a. the rights and/or constitutional authority of the applicant

provided by UUD 1945;

b. the right and/or constitutional authority by the applicant

is considered aggrieved by the expiring Act

testing;

c. The constitutional loss must be specific (special) and

actual or at least a potential that is according to the reasoning that

reasonable to be assured will occur;

21

d. ) between the loss

referred to and the enactment of legislation that is being moveed testing;

in particular due process of law (the correct vetting process) and fair)

which is one of the legal states ' traits as set in Article

1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution; 17. That the existence of a favorable witness and a witness a de charge which

the statute of legislation is set in Article 65 juncto of Article 116 of the paragraph

(3) Act 8/1981 has actually been in line with the rule containing assurances,

protection, and fair legal certainty as a rule

the constitution is set in Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. But the rule

legislation governing the definition of a witness in Article 1

number 26 is linked to Article 65 juncto Article 116 of the paragraph (3) Act

8/1981 has incur a disagreement with the constitution's constitution.

set up a guarantee, protection, and fair legal certainty.

The guarantee and protection becomes unclear with the witness definition that

does not cover any favorable witnesses and witnesses a de charge as

That. Similarly, legal certainty becomes lost, and justice becomes

ignored by the enactment of the laws governing the definition

of witnesses in Article 1 of 26 Acts 8/1981. The Act

this is real in conflict with the constitution's rule as set

in Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution; 18. That the rule of law, as formulated in Article 1

number 27 that defines "witness statements" as a description of

people who see themselves, hear themselves, and experience themselves

criminal events and he gives a reason about

his description, is idem dito by the definition of the witness in Article 1

number 26, if the rule in this section is connected to Article 184 of the paragraph

(1) letter a Act 8/1981. The rules of the Act are set up in this

placing "witness statements" in the first order of the evidence tool in

the trial. Placement in this first order indicates that

31

"witness statements" are very primary as evidence tools, far more primary

than other evidence tools. However, "witness statements"

whose laws are governed by Article 184 of the paragraph (1) of the letter a

This law, once again only in accordance with the witness statement of the fact

or the witness of an event or a damning witness. 19. That the definition of "witness description" as above may not always be

applied to the favorable witness description and the witness a de

charge. Thus the rules governing the

defenisi may result in witness statements that

benefits and witnesses a de charge in vain to serve as a tool

proof. as set out in Section 184 of the (1) letter a, if they are

not seeing alone, hearing itself, and experiencing self-occurrence

the criminal acts that are alleged to be. The description of the alibi witnesses in

a criminal case is crucial to the position. Because with

alibi evidence, then the investigation of the suspect can be stopped. Similarly

also in the trial, alibi evidence may release a defendant from

any legal prosecution. If an alibi witness cannot be made

as a valid evidence tool in the trial, there will be many

defendants who are being punished for mistaking. The waiver of an alibi witness description

as a valid tool of evidence is contrary to due process of law

which is the hallmark of the state of the law. Thus, it is clear that the rule of law-

invite as provided in Article 1 of the number 27 is linked to

Article 6 of the Act 8/1981 is contrary to the constitutional rules governing

the state of the law, as described in Article 1 of the paragraph: (3) UUD 1945; 20. That in our legal history, the case of Sengkon and Karta (1976) that

then prompted the birth of the institution "herzeining" or review

back (PK) in our penal event law, preceded by a non-

review of the Investigator call and examine the alibi witnesses, so

both must be punished, whereas they are actually innocent.

While the existence of a favorable witness (in the case of Sengkon

and Karta is an alibi witness) and the witness a de charge recognized by the rules

legislation set in Section 65 juncto Article 116 paragraph (3)

This Act, as part of due process of law which becomes

one of the hallmarks of the state of the law as set out in Article 1 of paragraph (3)

32

UUD 1945. It is clear that the rule of the Act as set

in Article 1 of the number 27 is connected with Article 184 of the paragraph (1) letter a

contrary to the constitution's rule as set in Article 1

paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution; 21. That the description of the witness description is set in Section 1

number 27 that only matches the description of the witness of the facts or witnesses

The incriminating event or witness is connected to the rules

set in Section 184 verse (1) the letter a, actually omit

the principle of warranty, protection and fair legal certainty

as set in Section 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. If the definition

such a witness resulted in no witness description which

benefits and witnesses a de charge serves as a proof tool, because

they do not see for themselves, hear themselves, and experience own

occurrence of a criminal event, then the rule of the Act

contrary to the constitutional rules governing the existence of guarantees,

protection, and fair legal certainty as set in

Article 28D paragraph (1) UUD 1945. Legal certainty goes missing, if

on one side the existence of a favorable witness and a witness a de

charge is recognized, while on the other hand, they cannot be

as a witness description as a valid proof tool

as the rule is set in Article 184 of paragraph (1) of the letter 8/1981.

Kaidah Act like this is clearly contrary to rule

the constitution governing the necessity of a legal certainty

as set in Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution; 22. That if the certainty of law does not exist, then by itself

there will be no guarantees and protection for the legal certainty of it. If

only witness statements or witnesses of events or witnesses that

incriminate only that may be made as a tool of evidence, while

a favorable witness description and a witness a de charge is not necessarily

can be used as a proof tool, then the principle of guarantee and protection, and

a fair legal certainty as a constitutional rule governed by Article

28D paragraph (1) is clearly violated by the rules of the Act

set up by Article 1 of the number 27 is connected with Article 184 of the paragraph (1) letter

a Act 8/1981;

33

23. That based on the above descriptions may be that the norm

The Act as set in Article 1 of 26 and number 27

is associated with the provisions of Article 65 juncto Section 116 of the paragraph (3) and the paragraph

(4) juncto Section 184 paragraph (1) the letter of an Act 8/1981 is contradictory

with the constitutional rules stating that the Republic State

Indonesia is a legal state, as set out in Article 1 of the paragraph

(3) The Constitution of 1945. The laws of the law also contradictory to

the constitutional rules governing the recognition, guarantees, protection,

and fair legal certainty as well as the same treatment before

the law, as set out in the law. in Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution;

24. That facing the reality above, in accordance with the contents of this plea,

then it should be the Constitutional Court known as " the guardian

and the final interpreter of constitution" to state that rules-

laws set out in Article 1 of 26 and figure 27

are connected with Section 65 juncto Section 116 of the paragraph (3) and paragraph (4) juncto

Section 184 of the paragraph (1) of the letter 8/1981 is contrary to the rule

the constitution relating to the principles of the state of law and the asas of recognition,

the guarantee, protection, and determination of a fair law and the equation in

the presence of the law, as set out in Section 1 of the paragraph (3) and Section 28D

paragraph (1) UUD 1945. However, according to the applicant, if the rule-

the statute of law is annulled, there will be a legal vacuum,

in particular in relation to the witness of the facts, witness events or witnesses

incriminating, which is also very important it is in

law enforcement; 25. That according to the applicant, a vacuum of law that

formulated the defencontents that contained favorable witness qualifications

and witness a de charge had actually occurred from the beginning of the drafting of the Act

8/1981. As a former Minister of Justice and human rights in the past

many were involved in formulating the rule of law, the applicant

realized that there was no Act of perfect. Although

KUHAP was declared a "masterpiece of the Indonesian nation" but as it was

by passage of time, there were cracks in the weakness of the formulation

rule, which in later times was utilized by the enfortification apparatus

The law is still imbued by the spirit "control crime model" a la HIR.

34

The tendency of power arrogance while the enforcement apparatus

our laws, capitalize on the weakness of the rule of the law-

invite this to treat the suspect and/or defendant

arbitrary. What power, they are weak, stupid, and poor, so

they are the victims of the arbitrariness of the apparatus that nota bene

is his own nation. Circumstances like this should certainly not be allowed

so alone; 26. That the authority to fill the vaccine, according to the mechanism

of our constitution, is actually the authority of the invite-

invite, in this case is the House of Representatives and the President

(Article 5 juncto Article 20 UUD 1945). But considering the process would be

very depending on whether or not the invite-

invite would be able to fill it, which would certainly take a relatively long

term, then by referencing the Court of Justice. 49 /PUU-

VIII/2010 and previous rulings, then the Court can

fill the vaccine by giving an interpretation to

interpreting a statute of law as the positive law

applicable, in order to occur. Contittionalities with the Constitution of the Constitution. In the event

this, the Constitutional Court is authorized to mean the rule of invite-

invite as described in Article 1 of the 26 and figure 27

is connected with Article 65 juncto Section 116 of the paragraph (3) and paragraph (4) juncto

Article 184 paragraph (1) of the letter 8/1981 to be constitutional against

Article 1 of the paragraph (3) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the Constitution of 1945; 27. That the applicant is referring to, if the definition of

the witness and the witness description as set out in Article 1 of 26

and the number 27 is linked to the provisions of Articles 65 and 116 verses (3)

and paragraph (4) juncto Section 184 of paragraph (1) letter a, let so, then

laws governed in those sections

the conditional remain unconstitutional (conditionally unconstitutional), i.e.

contradictory with the constitutional rules as set in

Article 1 of paragraph (3) and Section 28D paragraph (1) UUD 1945. In an

state of the law, the organizers of the state, let alone who have

the authority relevant to the process of making the Act,

35

may not allow any of the applicable positive law rules, which

is the unconconstitutional conditionally like that; 28. That in order to make the rule of law that contains the definition

Atmasasmita as written in his " BlackBerry Massages* jargon

39

that justice is abstract, but the certainty of the law is something that

concrete. The applicant in the case of testing the Act is not

solely to expect an abstract justice with the ruling

the court, but also a concrete legal certainty

against constitutional losses. that it has been foreclosure; 36. That Amrozy died in the case of a Bali Bomb for example -- already

hard to apply for testing Perpu Number 2

Year 2002 juncto Act No. 16 Year 2003 on Enforcing Effect

Perpu No 1 Year 2002 juncto Act Number 15 of 2002 on

The Eradication of Criminal Terrorism Specialized for the Event

Pemboman in Bali, whose laws are judged to be at odds

with constitutional rules as stated in Section 28I verse (1) UUD

1945. The plea was granted by the Court, but did not bring

any benefits for Amrozy, because of the abstract nature of the ruling

and it applies prospectively. Amrozy only gets the reward as

the charity of jariah, because its granted appeal carries benefits

for the many, who are in Islamic faith based on the hadith

Messenger of the Prophet, the hero will continue. flow all the way to the afterlife,

when the concerned are dead. While it was possible for Amrozy and

his legal advisory team, they submitted a material test to the Court

Constitution, not merely expecting the reward charity jariyah for

in the afterlife, but rather the ruling was expected to be bringing implications

constitutional and yuridis for the applicant above this ephemeral world.

The applicant pleads if the Court can end man ' s hopes

like Amrozy who appears to have been a wasted wait for

His life for the court ruling brought something concrete on

himself. However, what was not until Amrozy's final

was executed in front of the firing squad. The fate of Amrozy as a person awaits

The uncoming Godot, as Samuel Beckett told me

in his novel "Waiting for Godot"; 37. That there is another possibility, which is the ruling of the Court

The constitution containing the abstract justice would be

purposefully interpreted by the diverse parties of interest,

so that it ended. Obliteration of a concrete law.

40

of that ruling. Whereas, in the case of testing the Act, more

specifically in the test of interpretation of the Act against the rules

the constitution, the applicant is instead hoping that the Court can

interpret or define a rule. The vague-

cryptic and multi-interpretation act, as well as the "constitutional conditionally"

or conditionally unconstitutional, is a light-light and

has a concrete legal certainty. The applicant has

experience in testing Act No. 49 /PUU-VIII/2010

which granted a portion of the applicant's pleas, but it turns out

The court's ruling has been interpreted as a result of its own (saenake

dewe, Jawanya) by suggesting "Six Government Attitudes

Against the Constitutional Court's termination" delivered in an

press conference by the Secretary of State Secretary of State Sudi Silalahi and Staff

Special President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, Prof Dr Denny Indrayana,

who tried to obscured and even eliminate certainty

the law of the court ruling; 38. That to face this possibility as above, the applicant

implores that the verdict will be later stated

bringing constitutional and judicial implications, namely the Compulsory Investigator

The Attorney General of the Republic of the Republic of the Republic of the Republic of China. Indonesia to call and check

Megawati Sukarnoputri, HM Jusuf Kalla, Kwik Kian Gie and Susilo Bambang

Yudhoyono as a favorable witness for the applicant as

suspect in case of criminal corruption violating the provisions of Article

2, Section 3, and Section 12 of the letter i Law Number 31 Year 1999 juncto Bill Number

20 Years 2001 on Criminal Corruption, as a loss

constitutional applicant who served as legal position (legal

standing) that the natural applicant is real, factual and specific,

since the constitutional loss it has been, the applicant

as a Suspect by the Attorney General since 24 June 2010.

Statement (declaratoir) in the court ruling, about the implications

constitutional and juridical of that ruling, according to the applicant,

is not a amar verdict (command) to an

institution the host of the country or its people;

41

39. That in order to strengthen the above,

in this case check, the applicant in addition to submitting the evidence,

also will present the experts to strengthen the applicant ' s dalil-dalil;

IV. Petitum That of all the postures described above and the evidence attached, and

experts will be heard in the examination of the case, with this

The applicant please to His Majesty the Assembly of Justice of the Constitution To please

provide a verdict as follows:

In The Point of Case: 1. Accept and grant the applicant request to test the provisions

Article 1 of 26 and number 27 juncto Section 65 juncto Section 116 of the paragraph (3) and

paragraph (4) juncto Section 184 paragraph (1) letter a Act Number 8 of the Year

1981 on KUHAP (LN 1981 Number 76 and TLN 1981 Number 3209)

against the Basic Law of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945;

2. Stating that Article 1 of 26 and 27 are linked to the provisions

Section 65 juncto Section 116 of the paragraph (3) and paragraph (4) juncto Section 184 of the paragraph (1) letter

a Law No. 8 Year 1981 on the Law of the Event Law

Penal (LN 1981 Number 76 and TLN 1981 Number 3209) is appropriate

with the Basic Law of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945

conditional (conditionally constitutional), i.e. constitutional along

a favorable witness and a witness a de charge is the person

that can provide a description for the purposes of the inquiry,

the prosecution and the judiciary about a criminal case that is not always

and/or should he hears himself, he sees himself and he is in his own nature.

Attraction Favorable witness and witness a de charge is wrong

one evidence in a criminal case which is a matter of a witness

regarding a criminal event that is not always and/or should he hear

alone, he look at his own and he naturally himself by calling the rationale of

his knowledge of it. Request to be called and dialed witness who

favorable and witness a de charge is the mandatory suspect's right

called and checked by the Investigator, without the Investigator's authority

to assess and refuse exercised that obligation.

3. Stating that this ruling carries a constitutional and juridical implications

to the Investigator on the Attorney General of the Republic of Indonesia that checks

42

The applicant, to call and inspect the favorable witnesses

requested by the applicant, namely Megawati Sukarnoputri, HM Jusuf Kalla,

Kwik Kian Gie and Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono as long as the applicant

was designated as a suspect on 24 June 2010;

4. Ordering a loading of this ruling in the Republic of Indonesia News

as it should be.

Or if the Constitution of the Constitution of the Constitution argues otherwise, the ruling is

in its fair (ex aequo et bono).

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

submitted a letter of letter proof/writing that was given the proofs of the P-1 proof up to

The evidence P-23, as follows:

1. Proof of P-1 Photocopy of Population Sign Card (KTP) and Passport

The applicant;

2. Evidence P-2 Photocopied Act No. 8 of 1981 On

Criminal Event Law;

3. Evidence P-3 Photocopy of the State Basic Law of the Republic of Indonesia

Year 1945;

4. Evidence P-4 Photocopy of the Book of Criminal Law (KUHP);

5. Proof of P-5 Interactive tempo Photocopier, on Tuesday, June 29, 2010,

at 07:37 WIB;

6. Evidence P-6 Photocopied the Suspect's Call from the Attorney General

Republic of Indonesia Number SPT-2915/F. 2/Fd.1/10/ 2010

date 14 October 2010;

7. Proof P-7 Photocopy of the applicant;

8. Evidence P-8 Photocopied Kliping Newspaper Media Indonesia, on Sunday,

October 17, 2010;

9. Proof P-9 Photocopy Kliping Between News, on Tuesday, August 10

2010, at 5:59 pm;

10. Proof of p-10 Photocopy Letter to the Director of Inquiry

The Special Criminal Attorney General of the Republic of the Republic

Indonesia to present the expert and witness to lighten

in the case of the applicant as a suspect;

11. Evidence P-11 Photocopy Letter Of Intent Government Of The Republic Of Indonesia

43

to the IMF on 21 May 2000;

12. Evidence P-12 Photocopy Magazine TRUST 51 Year VIII, 18-24 October

2010;

13. Evidence P-13 Photocopy Data Center Statistics Year 2008;

14. Evidence P-14 Photocopy Law No. 40 of 2007 on

Limited liability;

15. Evidence P-15 Photocopy Act No. 20 of 1997 on

State Reception Is Not Taxes;

16. Evidence P-16 Photocopy of Government Regulation No. 38 Year 2009

on Types and Tarif over Types of State Reception

Not the Tax applicable to the Department of Law and

Human Rights;

17. Evidence P-17-Photocopy Detiknews.com, on Wednesday, October 20, 2010,

at 5:47 pm;

-Photocopy Tribunnews.com, on Monday, October 4, 2010,

at 7:46 pm;

-Photocopy TEMPO Interactive, on Wednesday, 20 October 2010,

at 21:38 WIB;

18. Evidence P-18-Photocopy Seruu.com, on Friday, October 15, 2010,

at 21.50 WIB;

-Photocopy Metrotvnews.com, on Friday, October 15

2010, 21.09 WIB;

-Photocopy Kompas.com, on Friday, 15 October 2010,

at 6:22 pm;

19. Evidence P-19-Photocopy Seruu.com, on Friday, October 15, 2010,

at 21.59 pm;

-Photocopy VIVAnews.com, on Friday, October 8, 2010,

at 15.05 WIB;

-Photocopy Republika.co.id, on Wednesday, October 6, 2010,

at 8:42 pm;

-Warta Indonesia, on Friday, October 15, 2010,

17.54 WIB;

-Photocopy of DetikNews, on Wednesday, 20 October 2010, at

17.47 WIB;

44

-Photocopy Tribunnews.com, on Monday, October 4, 2010,

at 19.46 WIB;

-Photocopy TEMPO Interactive, on Wednesday, October 20, 2010,

at 21.38 WIB;

-Photocopy Tribunnews.com, 4 October 2010;

20. Evidence P-20-Photocopy Suaramedia.com, on Friday 1 October 2010,

at 14.44 WIB;

-Photocopy VIVAnews.com, on Friday, October 1, 2010,

at 15.32 WIB;

Photocopy of H. M Jusuf Kalla regarding

Sisminbakum;

21. Proof of p-21 Photocopy of Kwik kian Gie about the Project

Sisminbakum;

22. Proof of p-22 Photocopy Clippings of Inoneisa News, on 1 October

2010;

23. Proof P-23 Photocopying Clipping Sound Renewal, On November 1

2010, At 13:23.

In addition, the applicant also submitted 4 (four) experts who had

heard his regularity under oath in the trial of 18 January

2011, at the bottom of the following:

1. Prof. Dr. Edy O.S. Hiariej a. Based on the historical interpretation, the KUHAP was formed to replace the

Herzine Indische Reglement that was colonial and inclined

to apply the principles of crime control model, which is the presence of efficiency,

Use the quantity and use of the guilty asas of guilt. By

since it is a KUHAP that is formed on the nature of the independence no

leaving completely the principles in a crime control model but

already leads to due process of law as a model events

in the universal applicable penal justice system.

b. Based on the doctrinal interpretation, the word "proof" or "evidence" or "bewijs"

is the information that provides the basics in favor of an

the belief that some parts or the whole of the fact are true. There are

four fundamental things related to the concept of proof itself:

45

1) the evidence must be relevant to the ongoing dispute or case that is

processed. That is, the evidence relates to the facts that

points to the truth of an event.

2) the evidence should be acceptable or admissible. Otherwise, the evidence

is irrelevant, it will not be able to Roger. The kendatias, however, can

only a relevant but unacceptable evidence.

3) the presence of exclusionary rules or exclusionary discretion, which is the regulation

that requires that the evidence obtained. illegal not

can be received in court. In the context of the criminal law,

the neutrality of a proof is relevant and can be accepted from the point of view

The public prosecutor, but the evidence may be ruled out by

the judge when the acquisition of such evidence is not. pursuant to

the rules.

4) in the court context, any evidence that is relevant and acceptable

should be able to be evaluated by a judge. It is thus included in

the context of the proof powers or bewijskracht. The judge will assess

any evidence submitted to the court, fitness between evidence

one with the other evidence, then would make evidence-

the evidence as a basis of consideration in taking the verdict.

The universal applicable evidence tool in the criminal justice system is

witness (witness), expert (expert), document, and real evidence or physical

evidence which is in the legal context of the criminal event in the Indonesia is known

with the term evidence. The witness is a witness who

incriminates (de charge) and extenuating witnesses (a de charge),

which is relevant to the case that is being processed.

The evidence in criminal law begins since the stage investigation and/or

enquiry until at the examination stage at the court hearing. By

as it is investigators and the prosecution may request a witness description

incriminating from the inquiry stage and or inquiry into

the trial stage. Similarly, as a counterweight,

the suspect may request a clear witness description from the

stage of inquiry and or inquiry into the trial stage.

The submission of evidence by a suspect or a defendant according to the principle

exculpatory evidence that means the suspect or defendant is entitled

46

shows any evidence including the extenuating witness description

to indicate that he was innocent. This is for preventing

occurrence of unfair prejudice or an unnatural interest in

suspects.

c. Based on the grammatical interpretation, the provisions of Article 1 figure 26 juncto

Article 1 number 27 juncto Article 84 paragraph (1) the letter a KUHAP at its core

defines the witness as the person who can provide the description

in order Investigative interests, prosecution, and the judiciary about an

a criminal case he hears himself, he sees himself and himself.

If translated a contrario description of an event that

Not seen, heard or experienced alone is not a witness description.

When, An alibi witness is needed as a extenuation.

to the suspect or the defendant already of course he does not see,

to hear, or experience his own about a criminal matter that

dismay or impediatable. It can be said that the definition of the witness

contained in Article 1 of 26 juncto of Article 1 of 27 juncto Article 84

paragraph (1) letter a KUHAP more on incriminating witnesses (de charge).

A grammatical interpretation of Article 65, Section 116 of paragraph (3), and

Section 116 of the paragraph (4) of the KUHAP indicates that the provisions

such are clearly addressed to the extenuating witness (a de charge).

Thus section 1 number 26 juncto Article 1 of 27 juncto Section 84

paragraph (1) letter a KUHAP contradictory to Section 65 juncto Section 116

paragraph (3) and paragraph (4) of the KUHAP resulting in uncertainties law

and non-warranty as well as equal treatment of any person

when faced with a lawsuit.

If connected to four fundamental things in the law of proof,

the significance of the witness is not located on whether he sees, hearing or

experiencing his own a criminal event, But whether his testimony

is relevant or not with a criminal case that is being processed.

Whether the witness description admissible or not admissible

is the judge's authority to determine in order

an assessment of the proof power of the evidence submitted by

the public prosecutor or the defendant.

47

d. Based on the comparative interpretation of Article 342 of paragraph (1) Wetboek

van Strafvordering in the Netherlands Country that defines the witness: "Onder

verklaring van een getuige wordt verstaan zijne bij het onderzoek op de

terechtzitting gedane mededeeling van feiten of omstandigheden, welke hij