5

2002 on the Commission of Eradication Of Corruption (Sheet

State Of The Republic Of Indonesia In 2002 Number 137, Extra Sheet

State of the Republic of Indonesia Number 4250, subsequently called the KPK Act),

because The KPK is not authorized to perform an inquiry termination;

11. That there is not enough evidence and there has been a murder of a character with

the placement of the applicant as a criminal corruption offender by the KPK,

so the applicant submitted an inquiry termination letter but the KPK

on the other hand was not have the authority to stop the inquiry

as provided in Section 40 of the KPK Act;

12. That between constitutional losses is closely related to the norm that

is being honed by the applicant with the prevailing norm that

is contained in Article 40 of the KPK Act which asserts " Commission of Eradication

Corruption does not issue termination warrants

investigation and prosecution in criminal corruption charges", relating to

with that norm has inflicted a loss or potentially

inflict loss for the applicant and the loss relates

with the norm that is tested as well as reason expressed as contradictory to

UUD 1945 and has no binding legal force, due to the case

The applicant cannot be terminated his investigation, although the placement

The applicant as a suspect has violated fundamental rights of the principle

a presumption of innocence as the applicant is held for something that

is beyond the responsibility and authority of the applicant.

3. SUBJECT 1. That the things that have been put forth in the Court's authority

The Constitution and the Applicant Law as described above

are an inseparable part of this subject of application;

2. That the law is present for seekers of justice with such paradigms

then if justice seekers face a legal matter,

then it is not "the seeker of justice is to blame" but those

the law enforcement must Do something against existing laws, including

reviewing applicable principles, doctrines, substances and procedures

including in this case the norm in Article 40 of the KPK Act is

"The Corruption Eradication Commission is not authorities issued a letter

order termination of the inquiry and prosecution in case of action

6

criminal corruption";

3. That the law is present in the middle of society is not just

according to the black-wtih words (according to the letter),

but according to the spirit and the deeper meaning (to the very meaning)

of the Law or the Law. The law is not only run with

intellectual intelligence but with spiritual intelligence. Execute

the law must be with determinations, empathy, dedication, commitment to

the nation ' s suffering to dare seek another path to truth, justice

and the legal certainty of the seeker of justice;

4. That it is in line with Moh's thinking. Mahfud MD in

his book Constitution and Law in the Isu Controversy, which confirms

An attempt to enforce legal certainty is often used as a tool for

defeating the seeker of justice. In the name of legal certainty, the seeker

justice is often defeated by the dalil that is in the Act.

When it was a lot of conservative, elitist, and positivistic-instrumentalistic legislation or as a tool justifying the will

the ruler. That is why, in doing the 1945 Constitution amendment with

it is very conscious that we affirm the principle of enforcement of justice into the constitution

in the judicial process. Judges are encouraged to dig up the sense of justice

substantive (substantive justice) in society rather than shackled

provisions of the Act (procedural justice);

5. That the submission is aimed at the norms contained in

Article 40 of the KPK Act due to the contrary to Article 1 of the paragraph (3), Article 28D

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

6. That the norm in Article 40 of the KPK Act is contrary to

Article 1 of the paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution which has expressly stated that

"Indonesia is a law state". That the existence of the

legal certainty in a country is assertive about the enactment

a rule of law (Lex Certa). The principle of lex certa "requires

that a rule of law applies decisively because there is no doubt-

raguan in its treatment". That Section 40 of the KPK Act is

a rule that has no legal certainty and violates the principle of presumption

not guilty as well as not in line with the criminal event law guidelines

set in Article 109 paragraph (2) and Section 140 of the paragraph (2) KUHAP.

7

7. That according to Prof. Dr. Sri Sumantri, "State of Law" Article 1 paragraph (3) of the Constitution

1945 at least must meet the following elements: (i) Governance

in the course of the task and its obligations must be based on the law

or (ii) Adanya guarantees of rights

human rights (citizens); (iii) Adanya division of power in

country; (iv) Adanya oversight of State government agencies;

8. That Prof. Dr. Jiuse of Indonesia are related to the bribery case Check Pelawat/Travel Cheque by

members of the DPR RI period 1999-2004 are related to the election of the Deputy

Senior Governor of Bank Indonesia of 2004;

6. That the placement of the applicant as a suspect published

is widely shared by both print and electronic media has judged the applicant

as a Criminal Corruption Offender, while the applicant is absolutely not

involved in the followup. criminal corruption as required by the Tindak Commission

Corruption Criminal;

7. That the applicant has qualified legal (legal

standing) qualifications and has the interest to deliver a material test right

(judicial review) as referred to in the provisions of Article 51 of the paragraph (1)

letter a bill MK, related to the prevailing norms contained in Article

40 Act the possibility

in the process of investigation and prosecution found NOT enough evidence

which is reflected in the provisions Article 32 paragraph (1) Act Number

31 Year 1999 on Criminal Corruption Charges stated " In case

investigators find and argue that one or more elements of the followup

The criminal corruption is not enough evidence, whereas in real there has been

the financial loss of the state, then the investigator soon submitted the file

The case of the investigation results to the State Attorney for Attorney

filed a civil lawsuit or submitted to the harmed agency

to file a lawsuit". Article 32 paragraph (1) of Act Number

31 of 1999 on the preexisting Corruption Penal Code exists

is opposed by the KPK Act, in particular Section 40 of which it was given, with

negating the possibility of being found "No. there is enough evidence";

19. That in spite of Article 63 of the paragraph (1) the KPK Act provides a mechanism

a lawsuit against the error committed by the Investigator and the KPK Prosecuting

which determines "in case someone is harmed as a result

the inquiry, investigation and prosecution carried out by the Commission

The Corruption Eradication is contrary to this Act

or with applicable law, the person in question is entitled to

file a lawsuit rehabilitation and/or compensation". That the provisions

this section cannot be viewed as justification against Article 40. By

as such, Article 40 should be viewed as the last filter if still

there is a procedure error if Article 40 is cancelled-quod non-then

Article 63 could be used;

20. That it is wiser and fair to open a space to a halt

11

The investigation of a person based on law is not enough evidence for

filed in a criminal corruption trial rather than being forced to do

the trial by giving the opportunity to file a rehabilitation lawsuit

and/or compensation as the terms of Article 63 paragraph (1) of the KPK Act.

That with suspect status of criminal corruption held by

The applicant has been severely harmed and destroyed the image, good name, jati

the applicant and the applicant ' s family as a corruption suspect, whereas

not yet of course the legal fact suggests the applicant is a criminal offender

corruption;

21. That in the presence of Article 40 of the KPK a quo tested then the Commission

Corruption Eradication is not authorized to issue SP3 and

the implications of the check cannot be stopped and must be run continuously

to be submitted go to the Court of Tipikor and if the results of the examination in the Court

Tipikor assured the Judges that there is no evidence that can

be made the basis for stating the accused has committed a criminal offence

and the logical consequences The defendant must be acquitted That with

the existence of such a release does not eliminate the suffering that is during

this is served as a suspect/defendant detained and attached a corrector cap

and it can be avoided if the Commission of Eradication Corruption

issued the SP3 and this cannot be done because of Article 40

KPK Act;

22. That the Corruption Eradication Commission is filled by people who are elected

based on a good track record, has knowledge, skills,

intelligence and integrity are unquestionable by the public, so

if was given the authority to issue SP3 can

be accounted for and can be prevented from untrue negotiations from

parties that are not responsible;

23. That the norm in Article 40 of the KPK Act is contrary to

Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution adhering to the babas principle of the treatment

discriminatory, because the laws of the criminal events set out in Article 109 of the paragraph

(2) and the Article 140 verses (2) of the Penal Code govern the termination of the investigation and

the termination of the prosecution, so the applicant who is made a suspect who

is bewitched by the Corruption Eradication Commission cannot be saditiated

its inquiry even if it complies. requirements can be stopped

12

the investigation, while the investigation and prosecution process is carried out

Polri investigators and the Prosecutor's Office may cease the investigation

and the termination of the prosecution of origin is eligible to be terminated

the investigation and its stalking;

24. That the provisions of Article 40 of the KPK Act indicate that

discriminatory treatment applied by the KPK against the Suspect/Terdakwa/

Check if compared to the treatment applied by the agency

Other law enforcement officers and the Attorney and its legal institutions

who are authorized to conduct the examination. All agencies

outside the KPK open the possibility of "cessation of vetting". That

is reflected in the laws governing

the termination of the examination by the country/agency of the given country

the authority of conducting the unifying, as described below:

No. Weak Name

Basic Rules

Stop Stopping! ksaan