---

Principal Applicant Sri Royani delivered petition points at judicial review session on Act of the Criminal Procedure (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana –KUHAP) and Act of the Indonesian National Police (Undang-Undang Kepolisian Negara Republik Indonesia –UU Polri) on Wednesday (10/6) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie

 

The Constitutional Court held inaugural judicial review session on Act Number 8 Year 1981 of Criminal Procedure (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana –KUHAP) and Act Number 2 Year 2002 of the Indonesian National Police (Undang-Undang Kepolisian Negara Republik Indonesia –UU Polri). The petition was filed by an Indonesian citizen Sri Royani.

At the session of case number 67/PUU-XIII/2015, the Applicant reviewed Article 7 (1) letter g, Article 120 (1) and Article 229 (1) the Criminal Code and Article 229 (1) Act of the Indonesian National Police which regulated on expert for case examination process which assessed potentially detrimental and hindered her in seeking justice as well as caused authority abuse conducted by investigators.

The Applicant argued there were several ambiguous phrases in the Article a quo. For example in Article 120 (1) the Criminal Code on phrase “In terms the investigator considered necessary, he could request opinions from the expert or people who have particular skills” (Dalam hal penyidik menganggap perlu, ia dapat meminta pendapat ahli atau orang yang memiliki keahlian khusus”),  didn’t explain explicitly on when, how, and what condition expert’s testimony needed.

The phrase ‘Expert’s testimony’ in the same Article was unclear its expert parameter and criteria. In addition, it also unclear whether the phrase ‘who have particular skills’ was the same with the word ‘expert’ because there was ‘or’ which contrast the meaning.  

By filing petition, the Applicant expected that the provision which regulated on expert for case examination would grant legal position, particularly on how and what condition expert’s testimony could or should obtained during the examination and also the criteria, standardization, and parameter for an expert as well as how the expert should provide testimony.

The Applicant claimed conducted legal attempt for seeking legal certainty in West Java Regional Police (Kepolisian Daerah Jawa Barat –Polda Jabar) for 4 years already. According to her, the case filed to the police was clear in its material evidence, however it still hampered by investigator’s opinion which obliged her to summon the testimony of three experts from three different universities. The case was fraud and land embezzlement. “Actually the expert should summon by what expense? I had search (the provision, red) everywhere but never issued from 1981,” said her on Wednesday session (10/6) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building.

Concrete Case

Responding the petition, Justice Panel led by Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo accompanied by Constitutional Justice Patrialis Akbar and Manahan M.P. Sitompul explained the authority of Constitutional Court, which among others was reviewed norm constitutionality, whereas the Applicant filed a concrete case. “You are allowed to deliver concrete cases, however please reconstruct on the loss suffered as a result of this case and the article is contrary with the 1945 Constitution,” said Constitutional Justice Patrialis Akbar.

Patrialis added, the Applicant should consider if the article filed removed, there was legal basis remained for investigators. “If this article removed, for example declared contrary to the constitution, is the police later have legal ground to deepen the investigation which needed by the police,” Patrialis added.

Constitutional Justice Manahan advised the Applicant to revise the petitum. In the petitum, the Applicant still merged Act of the Indonesian National Police with the Criminal Procedure. “Thus, each Article should detail and what is the norm should be?” said him.

Manahan also asked the Applicant to reduce several petitums which beyond the Court’s authority, among others was the Constitutional Court cannot order the Government. (Lulu Hanifah/Prasetyo Adi N)

---