PRA PERADILAN

Menurut Dr. A. Hamzah (1986:10), praperadilan merupakan tempat mengadukan pelanggaran hak asasi manusia sebab niat dibentuknya praperadilan adalah sebagai “terjemahan” dari habeas corpus yang merupakan substansi HAM.

Dalam konteks bagaimana agar penerapan upaya-upaya paksa (dwang middelen), sebagaimana dimungkinkan dalam proses peradilan pidana seperti penangkapan dan penahanan, tidak merendahkan harkat dan martabat manusia, maka diperkenankanlah lembaga baru untuk melakukan pengawasan, yaitu lembaga praperadilan. Lembaga praperadilan dimaksudkan untuk pengawasan penggunaan upaya-upaya paksa oleh aparat penegak hukum fungsional dalam hal ini Kepolisian dan Kejaksaan. Lembaga praperadilan ini dimasukkan sebagai wewenang sebagai wewenang dari pengadilan sebelum memeriksa pokok perkara.

Dimensi pengawasan lembaga praperadilan ini adalah horizontal yang built-in (melekat). Artinya, lembaga praperadilan ini sudah merupakan bagian mekanisme sistem peradilan pidana yang diatur oleh KUHAP. Dengan kata lain, bahwa dengan adanya lembaga praperadilan ini maka “pesakitan” diberi hak oleh undang-undang untuk melakukan pengawasan atas jalannya suatu upaya paksa dalam proses penyidikan dan/atau penuntutan atas dirinya. Tujuan adanya pengawasan ini adalah antara lain untuk konkretisasi konsep HAM dengan prinsip akusatoris dan praduga tidak bersalah yang juga dimuat dalam KUHAP.

Penerapan prinsip habeas corpus dalam KUHAP tidak berhasil karena praperadilan dalam rumusan pasal-pasal KUHAP lebih mengarah kepada pengawasan administrative belaka. Misalnya, praperadilan tidak dapat digunakan untuk menguji:
i. Apakah asas yuridis dan nesesitas dalam upaya paksa itu absah dalam arti materiil,
ii. Apakah “bukti permulaan” sebagai dasar untuk menentukan status sebagai Tersangka dan kemudian menetapkan upaya-paksa seperti penahanan absah secara materiil.
KUHAP tidak mengenal investigating judge di Perancis atau Rechter Commisaries di Belanda yang mempunyai wewenang dalam menentukan tuduhan yang akan dikenakan terhadap seseorang.

Praperadilan sebagai salah satu kewenangan pengadilan secara horizontal atas penerapan upaya paksa oleh Polisi dan Jaksa meliputi:

1. Sah atau tidaknya penangkapan, penahanan, penghentian penyidikan atau penghentian penuntutan (kecuali terhadap penyampingan perkara untuk kepentingan umum oleh Jaksa Agung);
2. Ganti kerugian dan/atau rehabilitasi bagi seseorang yang perkara pidananya dihentikan pada tingkat penyidikan atau penuntutan (vide, Pasal 77 KUHAP);
3. Sah atau tidaknya benda yang disita sebagai alat pembuktian (vide, Pasal 82 ayat 1 dan 3 KUHAP);
4. Tuntutan ganti kerugian oleh tersangka atau ahli warisnya atas penangkapan atau penahanan serta tindakanlain tanpa alasan yang berdasarkan undang-undang karena kekliruan mengenai orang atau hukum yang diterapkan yang perkaranya tidak diajukan ke Pengadilan Negeri (vide, Pasal 95 ayat 2 KUHAP);
5. Permintaan rehabilitasi oleh tersangka atas penangkapan atau penahanan tanpa alasan yang berdasarkan undang-undang atau kekeliruan mengenai orang atau hukum yang ditetapkan yang perkaranya tidak diajukan ke Pengadilan Negeri (vide, Pasal 97 ayat 3 KUHAP)
   

Ruang lingkup yang diatur KUHAP itu dilihat dari sistem Eropa Kontinental, dimana lembaga praperadilan menyerupai fungsi Examinating Judge (Rechter Commissaries), yakni mengawasi apakah sah atau tidak suat upaya paksa. Tapi kewenangan Rechter Commissaries lebih luas lagi karena dimungkinkan juga sebagai Investigating Judge seperti memanggil saksi-saksi, melakukan penahanan, dan mendatangi rumah saksi dan tersangka untuk pengecekan suatu kebenaran keterangan (vide, Pasal 47, 46, 62, 56 RV).

Fungsi yang hampir mirip juga ditemui pada sistem hukum Anglo Saxon yaitu Habeas Corpus, dimana prinsip dasarnya adalah bahwa di dalam masyarakat yang beradab, pemerintah harus selalu menjamin hak kemerdekaan seseorang. Jika suatu penahanan terjadi atas diri seseorang maka terbuka kemungkinan untuk membawa ke pengadilan sekalipun perkara pokok masih dalam pemeriksaan pendahuluan. Dengan kata lain hak untuk diperiksa di muka Hakim sebelum perkara pokoknya diperiksa disebut Habeas Corpus.

Dalam praktik praperadilan timbul suatu masalah esensial yang kelihatannya teknis yaitu apakah praperadilan yang sudah jelas dimaksudkan untuk melindungi soal yang fundamental akan mengikuti sistem atau asas-asas pidana, perdata, administrasi. Pertanyaan ini penting untuk petunjuk praktik karena konsekuensinya adalah pada proses pemeriksaannya, pendaftaran perkara di pengadilan, posisi duduk, atribut, dan hukum pembuktiannya: materiil atau formal. Mengapa bisa pidana adalah karena praperadilan itu berada dalam kerangka pemeriksaan suatuperkara pidana (oleh Polisi dan Jaksa) dan diatur dalam KUHAP. Mengapa bisa perdata adalah karena tuntutan (petitum) yang disediakan lembaga praperadilan secara eksplisit itu hanya sampai kompensasi (ganti rugi) materiil dan imateriil (berupa rehabilitasi trauma). Dan masalah ganti rugi adalah merupakan materi hukum perdata. Mengapa bisa hukum administrasi adalah karena lembaga praperadilan itu muncul dalam kerangka mengoreksi penerapan administrasi proses judicial yang tidak tepat atau keliru. Jadi adalah pengawasan horizontal antar-instansional.

Kemungkinan-kemungkinan tersebut terlihat dengan tidak ditemukannya hukum acara mengenai praperadilan sehingga pasal-pasal itu sekaligus menjadi loop-holes yang dapat disalahgunakan. Karena dengan begitu akan lebih banyak praperadilan yang ditolak semata-mata karena ketidakmampuannya dalam pembuktian, padahal kenyataannya sungguh-sungguh dialami atau terjadi.

Menurut Luhut M. P. Pangaribuan lebih cenderung untuk menerapkan sistem atau asas-asas pidana oleh karena alasa-alasan sebagai berikut:

1. Praperadilan muncul dalam konteks pemeriksan pidana dan diatur dalam KUHAP.
2. Upaya paksa pada dasarnya adalah kejahatan yang diatur oleh KUHP, hanya saja oleh karena atas perintah undang-undang menjadi hilang sifat pidananya (strafuitsluitingsgrond). Karena itu, dengan sistem pidana maka dalam pemeriksaan praperadilan haruslah mengikuti sistem pembuktian materii

=====================================================


PRAKTEK ACARA PIDANA
2008

Death sentence, is it our right?

By: Ricky Gunawan and Answer C. Styannes from the Community Legal Aid Institute

Setting out the pros and cons about the death penalty always creates hot debate. Many countries including Indonesia, as well as several U.S. states, still have capital punishment, while the practice has been abolished in Europe and Australia.

Opponents of capital punishment argue there are many who still do not realize or recognize the death penalty violates the right to life as an inherent right of all human beings.

The death penalty is a form of cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. It is nothing more than legalized murder done by the state in the name of justice. If we think murder is extremely cruel -- so much so the perpetrators must receive a death sentence -- then how can we say preparing an execution team of twenty shooters to take someone's life is not inhuman?

One of the favorite arguments put forth by retentionists -- those who support the death penalty -- to justify capital punishment is it is one of the most effective deterrents for would-be criminals. They argue the death penalty is needed to prevent other members of society from committing crimes.

Statistics from many countries, however, demonstrate the death penalty has little effect on decreasing crime. It is not the severity of the punishment which will deter crime and convey justice for the victim but the certainty perpetrators are convicted after a just, transparent trial, a legal process which determines guilt based on evidence.

"But the death penalty meets society's need for justice." Retentionists often use this argument as well. Anyone who has committed a serious crime deserves to die. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, a life for a life. Is that the kind of justice we stand for here?

If so, then why not torture a torturer? At this point, we strongly condemn the practice of torture or, at least, prohibition of torture is clearly codified in the UN Convention against Torture. Letting that argument play out, why doesn't our legal system allow the state to rape a rapist?

It is simply because, deep down inside our conscience, we all know justice is not about taking that which the perpetrator has taken from us. For a long time, we have been sickened by cruel crimes and have asked the government to impede such cruelty by applying the death penalty. Yet we never put two and two together to see capital punishment does nothing more than continue the chain of atrocity.

Retentionists often link the notion of death penalty with a victim's need for justice. But who are they to talk about what any victim considers justice to be?

Victims often forgive perpetrators and even unequivocally declare they do not want the perpetrators to be executed. If we really want to punish perpetrators for the victims' sake, it is akin to punishing people based on emotional considerations. If punishments are linked to victims' feelings, then sanctions become subjective and risk becoming arbitrary.

Let's not forget the criminal justice system is vulnerable to error, an essential consideration in this debate. Fallibility is something we, as human beings, cannot avoid since it is in our nature. We cannot prevent all false convictions even with the system of judicial appeal.

Even an impartial and transparent legal process cannot always prevent this sort of human error. It is thus imprudent to allow this vulnerable system to decide if someone "deserves" to die or not.

As has already been proved in many cases, a court may execute someone who is falsely convicted. There are cases in which the executed were found innocent after the real perpetrators confessed and, unfortunately, after the executed had already lost their life. When this happens, consider who is responsible. If we are speaking of justice, what kind of justice can the victim, the executed one, and his or her family experience? We cannot bring the wrongly convicted back to life. Are retentionists willing to be responsible?

One final argument which Indonesian retentionists use to defend their position on the death penalty is a decision by Indonesia's Constitutional Court. In that decision, the right to life guaranteed in Article 28I, paragraph 1, of the Constitution is also subject to "limitation" as mentioned in the subsequent Article 28J, paragraph 2. The Constitutional Court confirmed the death penalty is not a violation of the right to life, only a limitation of that right.

That decision hinges on how we interpret what rights can be impaired, and which cannot. Is it true the right to life, explicitly mentioned in the Constitution as a right which cannot be derogated, is also subject to "limitation" as the Constitutional Court ruled?

Life is grace. It is a grace which is given by God. If He is the one who gave us life, then He must be the one with the right to take it. Who are we, as humans, to think we have the right to arrange somebody's moment of death? Who are we to judge whether someone is evil enough and hence deserves to die?

Are we playing God?

--
Ricky Gunawan is international relations manager at the Community Legal Aid Institute. He can be reached at rgunawan@lbhmasyarakat.org.
Answer C. Styannes is a research associate at the Community Legal Aid Institute. She can be reached at astyannes@lbhmasyarakat.org

Ahmadiyah’s Controversy in Indonesia — Vying for an Authority

The whole furor and controversy over Ahmadiyah sect is just a parcel of a larger dynamic in the Indonesian politics. Over the last ten years after the unleashing of democratic movement in Indonesia, one development stands out to be worthy of our analysis, namely the radicalizing trend among Muslim society. This trends manifested in various form, including the vigorous campaign launched by Islamists to adopt and implement sharia or Islamic law. The entire campaign to dissolve Ahmadiyah, to me, cannot be analyzed separately from this larger trend.

Looking at Indonesia solely through its constitution, you cannot help but to think that it is a modern state whose facade is not so different from the United States or Western European countries. All basic requirements you need to create democracy are meticulously met by Indonesia, ranging from free and fair election, protection of basic civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of association, to a robust civil society–every thing, you name it. Indonesian press is now entitled a relatively full freedom to publish whatever it thinks fit to put on its page, including, of course, criticizing the way government officers conduct public affairs–something that is hardly to happen in the previous regime.

Indonesian constitution lends also a full protection of religious freedom. Theoretically speaking, people are free to exercise their freedom to embrace any religion, faith, mazhab, and denomination of their choice. You are free to be Muslim, Christian, Hindus, Budhist, Confucian, and so forth. As a Muslim, you are also free to be Sunni or Shi’i, as well as free to affiliate with any Islamic organization you think fit to express your way of being Muslim.

But constitution is not the best lens to have a glimpse into the nature of any state and society, since it is only what Indonesia’s adage says “hitam di atas putih”, a mere ink on a paper. What is more important is to look at how that ink materializes into reality, and to what extent state policies live up to the lofty ideals espoused in the constitution. If this is the stick by which you judge Indonesia, I am afraid that it fails, particularly with respect to religious freedom.

The recent phenomenon is the whole furor over what is considered as a “deviant sect” in Islam called Ahmadiyah. The problem of Ahmadiyah has been around since early on even before Indonesian independence. This sect that was groomed in Pakistan came to Indonesia in 1925, and it spurred a controversy right away as it did anywhere it spread. This sect made a claim that raised the eyebrow of Muslim, namely that its founder is a new “prophet” that came after the Prophet Muhammad. Muslims who adhere to mainline Islam believe in the finality of prophecy in Islam. Ahmadiya’s doctrine on prophecy runs at odd with this doctrine. To say that new prophet possibly emerges is as odd to Muslim ear as to say that Jesus is not resurrected on the third day after his crucifixion to Christians.

From its early stage of its introduction to Indonesia, many Muslim scholars objected to the doctrine of Ahmadiyah, although Ahmadiyah should be credited with its good work to introduce Islam to the rank of Muslim intelligentsia in 30s in a way that resonates with Modern mind-set. Bung Karno, the first Indonesian president, befriended many intellectuals and activists who are either member or sympathetic to Ahamdiyah’s version of Islam. The first “official” translation of the Quran into Indonesian language conducted under the auspice of Ministry of Religious Affairs in 60s was pretty much influenced by Ahmadiyah’s writers. In nutshell, Ahmadiyah has successfully made an inroad into the Indonesian Islamic discourse through its committed missionaries and propagandists.

Throughout President Suharto’s rule (1968-1998), Ahmadiyah still enjoyed a full freedom to conduct its proselytizing activities which seems to be robust and aggressive as it is the case anywhere. In early 80s, the first “fatwa” or religious edict was being issued by the Indonesian Council of Ulama (MUI) in which this sect was for the first time officially deemed “deviant”. However, the edict didn’t go far as to demand the government to intervene to dissolve the movement.

The crucial shift occurred after reformasi (political reform) that followed the downfall of Suharto and his regime in May 1998. A series of attacks on Ahmadiyah’s mosques and its member escalated right after the issuance of a second fatwa by MUI on July 29th, 2005 in which Ahmadiyah is again labeled as deviant sect. However, the fatwa took different course this time. It was followed by a massive campaign conducted by radical and fundamentalist Islamic groups to press for the dissolution of Ahmadiyah as an organization and movement. There are certain groups that are worthy to be singled out as “engineers” of this campaign, namely Hizbut Tahrir, FUI (The Forum of Islamic Umma or Community) and and FPI (Front of Islam’s Defender).

The campaign succeeded to achieve its goal, marked by the issuance of the Joint Ministerial Decree (Surat Keputusan Bersama, known as SKB) in June 9th, 2008. The decree falls short of fulfilling the demand of radical Islamists to dissolve forever the Ahmadiyah movement. It mandates instead to freeze the proselytizing activities of Ahmadiyah, particularly its doctrine of prophecy. As noted by many observers, the decree is quite ambiguous. The question that is left un-addressed is whether the Ahmadi people are still free to conduct their religious activities in their mosques and madrasahs.

No matter how you interpret the decree, the fact remains the same: the government seems to fall into the trap set up by the Islamist groups that seem to be exerting its role recently in the Indonesian political landscape. By all means, the decree is evidently at odd with the constitution that insures the freedom of religion and faith.

How do we interpret this recent development as it unfolds in the case of Ahmadiyah?

Ahmadiyah is not a major and mind-boggling issue for Muslim rank-and-file. Of course, Muslim believe that the Prophet Muhammad is the final prophet. However, many of them won’t roll in anger if somebody in the corner of Islamic world show up and claim to be a new prophet. They will certainly object to that claim, but will never ever run into an amok simply because of that minor issue. If the course of event proceeds in the opposite direction, something must have gone wrong in one way or another!

The whole furor and controversy over Ahmadiyah sect is just a parcel of a larger dynamic in the Indonesian politics. Over the last ten years after the unleashing of democratic movement in Indonesia, one development stands out to be worthy of our analysis, namely the radicalizing trend among Muslim society. This trends manifested in various form, including the vigorous campaign launched by Islamists to adopt and implement sharia or Islamic law. The entire campaign to dissolve Ahmadiyah, to me, cannot be analyzed separately from this larger trend.

The main actors in this campaign are obviously Islamist groups such as Hizbut Tahrir, FUI and FPI. Hizbut Tahrir is worth mentioning here. I venture to claim that Hizbut Tahrir is the only group that has the highest stake in this campaign for a simple reason, namely to gain a credibility and credential in the eye of Indonesian Muslim who are mainly Sunni as an “Islamic voice”. Hizbut Tahrir has been confronted with resistance and political repression throughout Muslim countries, particularly in the authoritarian monarchies in Middle East. Indonesia is the only country where it finds a fertile soil to thrive. The first international conference of caliphate (Islamic global state) was conducted in Jakarta on August 2006. After its kicking out from UK on the allegation of its involvement in London bombing in 2007, Hizbut Tahrir sought an alternative base to launch its global movement to establish the Islamic caliphate. Where else does it fit better than Indonesia?

Ahmadiyah issue is also being politically exploited by other Islamist groups to earn reputation as an “authority” that deserves the respect of Muslim society. There are two major Islamic organizations that represent Islamic moderation in Indonesia, i.e. Nahdlatul Ulama and Muhammadiyah. However, the image of “moderation” is looked upon with deep suspicion by other Islamic groups, especially the Islamist and radical ones. Moderation, in their eye, amounts to being playing into the game of Washington. It is incumbent upon these groups to wrestle the authority to speak about Islam from these two moderate organizations.

In other words, the entire debate on deviant sect in Islam is not something that has a merit on its own, but rather a proxy for differing Islamic groups which vie for an authoritative position as the sole “voice” of Islam. What is regrettable is that Indonesian government slipped or deliberately let itself trapped in this dangerous game. As stated in the constitution, the Indonesian government is tasked with only one thing, i.e. to respect and guarantee the right of all its citizens to exercise their freedom to embrace any religion and faith of their choice. The state has no stake whatsoever in delineating what is “straight” and what is “crooked” with respect to religious doctrinal debate within any community!

Ulil Abshar-Abdalla

When I Think of You

by Lee Ryan

You're my past, my future
My all, my everything
My six in the morning when the clock rings
And I open up my eyes to a new day
My laughs, my frowns
My ups, my downs
It's a feeling that you get
When you know that something's true
When I think of love I think of you

I'm looking at you while you're sleeping here beside me,
Oh, mere words can't explain the love I have inside
Its more than just a physical thing, I know
Its something like spiritual connection
I feel it in my soul, heart and mind

The sweetest thing is what you are
From you I'll never be to far,
Please say forever you will stay beside me

You're my past, my future
My all, my everything
My six in the morning when the clock rings
And I open up my eyes to a new day
My laughs, my frowns
My ups, my downs
It's a feeling that you get
When you know that something's true
When I think of love I think of you

Your beautiful like the colours of the rainbow
Warm hearted like the rays of the sun on a summer day
And I got to do is look in to your eyes to lose myself
You're the substance of my dreams, epitomy of woman
The only one I truly call mine

The sweetest thing is what you are
From you I'll never be to far,
Please say forever you will stay beside me

You're my past, my future
My all, my everything
My six in the morning when the clock rings
And I open up my eyes to a new day
My laughs, my frowns
My ups, my downs
It's a feeling that you get
When you know that something's true
When I think of love I think of you

Oohh when I think of love, I think of you
Baby I love you, baby I need you

You're my past, my future
My all, my everything
My six in the morning when the clock rings
And I open up my eyes to a new day
My laughs, my frowns
My ups, my downs
It's a feeling that you get
When you know that something's true
When I think of love I think of you


===================================================================

Sure it is a very beautiful song. Dont you think so?
Badly Beautiful.

vote for INDONESIA

KABAR GEMBIRA!!!

Ternyata, 3 keindahan alam di Indonesia sedang dinominasikan untuk menjadi 7 keajaiban dunia yang baru.
Tidak bisa dipercaya, ternyata Taman Nasional Komodo yang terletak di Nusa Tenggara Timur menjadi jagoan. Dalam kurun waktu yang singkat, Taman Nasional Komodo naik secara cepat menuju peringkat 13 dari 77 unggulan keajaiban alam di dunia. Menyusul berikutnya adalah Danau Toba dan Gunung Krakatau.
Yang menarik ternyata adalah, keberadaan dan posisi Taman Nasional Komodo mengalahkan untuk sementara Grand Canyon dari Amerika dan Niagara Falls di Canada. Tolak ukur pengurutan ini adalah berdasarkan vote bagi para pengunjung web http://www.new7wonders.com.

Saya sudah nge-vote Taman Nasional Komodo, kamu juga harus nge-vote!!! Apabila ternyata Taman Nasional Komodo bisa menjadi salah satu dari 7 keajaiban dunia, saya rasa hal ini akan berakibat baik untuk negara kita dengan jalan meningkatkan atensi masyarakat internasional terhadap Indonesia.
Since, they know Bali. But don't know that it's a part of Indonesia.


VOTE HERE

Inikah yang namanya PERLINDUNGAN OLEH NEGARA?

Coba lihat film ini (click disini)

Bagaimana rasanya bila kita ada di posisi ahmadiyah. Saya misalnya tidak akan semudah itu untuk berpindah keyakinan. Man, ini masalah agama. Masalah keyakinan. Masalah hati nurani.
Seenaknya saja pemerintah berkata akan melakukan pembimbingan kepada jemaat ahmadiyah.
Seandainya mereka ada di posisi tersebut. Dibimbing untuk berpindah ke jalan ahmadiyah, mau tidak?
Taruhan 1 milyar, mereka tidak akan mau.

Negara ini sedang menghadapi dilema dalam menentukan sikap. Kita berdoa saja, apapun yang diputuskan oleh pemerintah kita sudah benar-benar dipikirkan matang-matang dan bukan hanya karena kepentingan dan tekanan satu pihak saja. Agar jangan nantinya, kita malah ditertawakan negara lain dalam melindungi hak warga negaranya.

movies to watch :
ahmadiyah 1
ahmadiyah 2
ahmadiyah 3
ahmadiyah 4
ahmadiyah 5

----
----
----


Seperti kata Dina Savaluna : "yang kita bela disini bukan Ahmadiyah, tapi Konstitusi".


cheers

Dibilang ormas sinting kok marah?

click here to read the article

Apalagi yang diinginkan oleh FPI? Belum beberapa lama berlalu sejak FPI menuntut pembubaran Ahmadiyah, sekarang FPI melakukan aksi 'cari muka' lagi. Sekarang yang jadi korbannya Andi Malarangeng.

Dengan aksi penuntutan FPI untuk membubakarkan Ahmadiyah, hal itu sudah melanggar konstitusi kita. Pasal dimana setiap rakyat berhak untuk memeluk agamanya masing-masing sudah dikesampingkan demi kepentingan FPI. Baiklah. Tapi ini apa lagi?

Sekarang FPI mulai mencoba berkesperimen mengobrak-abrik konstitusi terkait hak untuk menyatakan pendapat.
Lihat kutipan UUD 1945 berikut ini:

Pasal 28E
(1) Setiap orang bebas memeluk agama dan beribadat menurut agamanya, memilih pendidikan dan pengajaran, memilih pekerjaan, memilih kewarganegaraan, memilih tempat tinggal diwilayah negara dan meninggalkannya, serta berhak kembali.
(2) Setiap orang atas kebebasan meyakini kepercayaan, menyatakan pikiran dan sikap, sesuai dengan hati nuraninya.
(3) Setiap orang berhak atas kebebasan berserikat, berkumpul, dan mengeluarkan pendapat.

Tentu saja, tindakan Andi Malarangeng untuk mengatakan bahwa pelaku kekerasan di Monas adalah ormas-ormas sinting, dilindungi oleh Pasal 28 E ayat (3) yang menyatakan bahwa setiap orang berhak atas kebebasan mengeluarkan pendapat. Kenapa harus dilaporkan ke Polisi? Saya rasa, selama Andi Malarangeng tidak menyebut secara eksplisit bahwa FPI adalah ormas sinting, tidak ada yang perlu dipermasalahkan. Kenapa mereka merasa tersinggung yah? apakah karena mereka mengakui bahwa mereka lah pelaku kekerasan di Monas? Too bad, karena sebelumnya mereka pernah membuat statement bahwa mereka bukanlah pelaku kekerasan di monas.
Seperti menjilat ludah sendiri bukan?

Hendaknya aparat penegak hukum agak sedikit aware dengan adanya eksistensi konsistusi daripada hanya mementingkan kepentingan politik belaka. Amat disayangkan kalau kewibawaan Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 dicoreng hanya karena kepentingan satu golongan.