A session of petition revision attended by Principal Applicant (Left-Right) Ryand, Anbar Jayadi, and Lutfi Sahputra who filed a petition on Act of Criminal Procedure, on Monday (4/5) at Panel Session Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ifa

The Applicant withdrew the judicial review petition on Act Number 8 Year 1981 of Criminal Procedure (Undang-Undang Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana –UU KUHAP) at the session held on Monday (4/5). The case listed in number 44/PUU-XIII/2015 was filed by several justice and human rights activists; Damian Agatha Yuvens, Rangga Sujud Widigda, Anbar Jayadi, Luthfi Sahputra, and Ryand.

“Justice Panel, we hereby Applicant III, Applicant IV, and Applicant V who present at the session as well as representing Applicant I and Applicant II, hereby filed a withdrawal of judicial review on Act Number 8 Year 1981 of Criminal Procedure towards the 1945 Constitution (Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 –UUD 1945), with the Case Number 44/ PUU-XIII/2015, on this day dated May 4, 2015,” said Luthfie in front of Justice Panel led by Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo.

The reason of petition withdrawal was because the Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi –MK) had issued verdict towards similar case. “Related to judicial review on Act of Criminal Procedure, it had decided by the Constitutional Court,” explained one of the Applicant Anbar Jayadi  

At the session, Suhartoyo asked whether or not the Applicant had authorization letter from other Applicant who didn’t present at the session; Damian Agatha Yuvens and Rangga Sujud Widigda. Answered the question, the Applicant who attend the session said that they would later include the authorization letter. Suhartoyo requested to the Applicant to submit the letter immediately.

“Well then, thank you for your presence and please inform to your colleagues in order to deliver formal withdrawal to the Court. Therefore, Case Number 44/PUU-XIII/2015 is declared complete and close its proceedings,” said Suhartoyo.

Previously, the Applicant felt detrimental by the enactment of pretrial provision on Act 1 number 10 letter a and Article 77 letter a Criminal Procedure because it considered had yet guaranteed protection and legal certainty. The Applicant requested to the Court to extend pretrial objects, which was the validity of suspect-naming, arrest, detention, shakedown, seizure, letters examination, as well as termination of investigation and prosecution. (Triya IR/Prasetyo Adi N.)