Heril Iswandi, Lalu Parman, Umaiyah

Abstract:

The aim of this research is to analyze the existence of  Law  provisions Number 4/PNPS/1963 Article 1 paragraph (1) and article 6 of  Law  number 4/PNPS/1963 concerning on the safeguarding of Printed matters’ content that can interrupt Public Order before and after  Constitutional Court  verdict Number  6-13-20/PUU-VIII/2010 as well as analyzing the roles and obstacles of the Attorney General in confiscating the circulation of printed  matters before and after the Constitutional Court Verdict Number 6-13-20/PUU-VIII/2010.

The method of this research uses an empirical legal research, with a legislative approach and conceptual.  Collection techniques of legal material are carried out by collecting various references of primary, secondary and tertiary legal materials, and then it was analyzed quantitatively so that they can be concluded deductively.

Based on  results of  this research,  it can be concluded that Law  Number 4 / PNPS / 1963 concerning on Safeguarding Printed Matters that can disrupt Public Order as a basis for conducting surveillance of printed matters certified by the Attorney General is no longer valid since the verdict of the Constitutional Court number 6-13-20/PUU-VIII/2010 on October 13, 2010 as well as based on Constitutional Court Verdict Number 6-13-20/PUUVIII/2010, that the Attorney General is no longer  has authority to issue a decree on printed matters prohibition. However, based on Law Number 16 of 2004 Article 30 paragraph (3) letter c, the Attorney General  has authority to supervise the circulation of printed matters in Indonesia as well as  implementation of  printed matters confiscation  by the Attorney General has no obstacle due to  Attorney General’s actions.

Keywords: confiscation, printed matters, constitutional count’s verdict

Full Text: PDF