Constitutional Court held another trial for judicial review of Act 8/1981 about Criminal Law Procedures Code (KUHAP) with the agenda of expert testimonial hearing. In the trial, led by Head of MK Hamdan Zoelva, Law expert from Muhammadiyah University, Chairul Huda stated KUHAP can’t comprehensively protect the accused/convicted. It was smeared after no clear interpretation can be conveyed for the using of terms.       

“Article 1 letter 14 KUHAP, defines accused using initiation evidence. But in Article 17 KUHAP, accused is sentenced after sufficient initiation evidence,” he said in MK Plenary Room, Jakarta, Monday (14/7).

Chairul states, differed with imprisonment, to which will be dropped after sufficient evidence. In other words, there are three terms, initiation evidence, sufficient initiation evidence, and sufficient evidence, all of which are not explainable in KUHAP. Therefore, the Articles will be implemented on Judges’ opinion. KUHAP may be impartial and unpredictable.  

Moreover, the necessity of clear interpretation of terms is highly urgent to regard principle of innocence. “How can the accused fights for his/her interest if the ruling law is unclear? He said  

Meanwhile, UI Criminal Law expert, Eva Aryani Zulva stated that the main problem lies about KUHAP’s function to protect and instrumental facility. Protection function must bear after the misinterpreted may smear preceding Act validity. While the instrumental function, bears no law enforcement beyond what have been regulated can be applied.

“Article 1 KUHAP mentions that criminal accusation comprises all process from inspection to imprisonment as conveyed in the Act. Contrary to accusation in Article 1 number 7 KUHAP, to which only interpreted as initiation of trial session,” she said.   

Expert from UII, M. Arif Setiawan cited that KUHAP is too law enforcer-oriented, puts human rights establishment for the accused aside. “It is weakened by unclear norms, separates main issue of human rights and smears law uncertainty,” he said.   

Based on inspection opinion, there is no doubt that main issue for the investigation is to find 3 things, evidences, type of criminal, and the convicted. The criminal act relies on investigator discoveries. “With such understanding, investigation can’t decide before any evidence founded,” he said.

“It is clear, causal relations between the Applicant’s Constitutional rights occurred with the KUHAP validity. Because the reviewed Articles has harmed the Applicant’s rights upon acknowledgement, protection, just law certainty, and Constitutional Rights due to the process of law as determined in Article 28 verse (1) and Article 1 verse (3) 1945 Constitution,” Maqdir said. (Lulu Hanifah/mh/kun)