---

Suspect of rape attempt Sanusi Wiradinata felt that his Constitutional Rights were harmed by the ruling of Article 77 letter a Act 8/1981 about Criminal Procedures Code (KUHAP).

Represented by his attorney, Yudi Anton Rikmadani, The Plaintiff sees that the ruling article has shackled his gambit related to his invalid prejudicial settlement.

“Plaintiff asks for declaration of suspect settlement, official report, investigation, freedom limitation, and prosecution as invalid,” he said at MK Plenary Room, Jakarta, Wednesday (9/3).

Article 77 letter a KUHAP says:

“District Court has the competence to investigate and decide, as determined in this Acts concerning the validity, of arrestment, detention, and cancellation.”

Previously, prejudicial application filed by Sanusi has been accepted by South Jakarta District Court. The application has been granted, declaring that his arrestment is invalid. But, South Jakarta District Court refused to annul detention letter and case documents.     

Therefore, the Plaintiff who felt was criminalized by Jakarta Police Department, asked Constitutional Court to annul the Article as it was considered opposing the 1945 Constitution. “To declare Article 77 letter a KUHAP opposing 1945 Constitution,” he said.     

Sanusi a.k.a Lim Sam Che is a suspect of rape and abuse attempt in 2012. However, since being reported, Sanusi always ignored police summons and later be a fugitive. A year later, Victims and Witnesses Protection Agency (LPSK) protected Sanusi as he was a whistleblower for graft case.  

Sanusi allegedly knew a graft flow involving law enforcement officer. The protection was given after Sanusi felt he was criminalized by a lawyer named Lucas, who was intriguing with Jakarta police officer.  Due to that allegation, Sanusi applied for prejudicial verdict in District Court trial.  

Have been Reviewed

In response to that, Panel of Justices Aswanto, Arief Hidayat, and Anwar Usman, asked the Plaintiff to constructively revise his pleading. The same case was once being pleaded to MK and was rejected. “If the same thing is being pleaded without constructive change, it may be declared nebis in idem,” Arief said.

Although MK once has declared over an Article, Arief said that same article may be pleaded with some changes of Constitutional requirement and pole reference.(Lulu Hanifah/mh/kun)

---