---

Principal Applicant Sri Royani delivered revision points at judicial review session on Act of the Criminal Law Procedure Code (Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana –UU KUHAP) on Tuesday (23/6) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie.

 

 

The Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi –MK) held petition revision session on Act Number 8 Year 1981 of the Criminal Law Procedure Code (Undang-Undang 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 session of case number 67/PUU-XIII/2015 was led by Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo.

At the session, Principal Applicant Sri Royani strengthened her petition arguments. The Applicant argued the State never issued legislation which concretely regulated the reimbursement of expert fee and witness fee as stipulated in Article 229 (1) Act of the Criminal Law Procedure Code. In law enforcement context, she argued that the provision could be use for uncontrolled business interest which contrary to Article 28I (5) the 1945 Constitution. “Only those who have substantial funds who could summon any experts and witnesses,” said her on Tuesday (23/6) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building.

Article 229 (1) Act of the Criminal Law Procedure Code stated:

 “Witnesses or Experts presented for testimony examination in every level of court examination are entitled to reimbursement according to prevailing legislation”  (“Saksi atau Ahli yang telah hadir dalam rangka pemeriksaan keterangan di semua tingkat pemeriksaan berhak mendapatkan penggantian biaya menurut peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku”)

The Applicant said practically these fees were always charged to litigants due to no parameter of reimbursement amount, although theoretically it was depended on the parties who summoned experts or witnesses. “Therefore, most cases resolved by agreement of parties involved and community,” she added  

The Applicant requested the phrase ‘reimbursement’ (penggantian biaya) in Article 229 (1) the Criminal Law Procedure Code declared conditionally unconstitutional if it didn’t interpreted as ‘reimbursement covers on transportation and accommodation fee’ (penggantian biaya adalah penggantian transportasi dan akomodasi). “Applicant requests to the Court to give constitutional interpretation in Article 229 (1) the Criminal Law Procedure Code and provide interpretation limit because the State never conduct the mandate of Act a quo,” she explained.

In addition, the Applicant requested to the Constitutional Court to declare the phrase ‘in term of investigators consider necessary’ (dalam hal penyidik menganggap perlu ) and phrase ‘an expert’ in Article 120 (1) Act of the Criminal Law Procedure Code conditionally unconstitutional if didn’t interpreted ‘if investigators have not found at least two valid evidences’ (jika penyidik belum menemukan minimal dua alat bukti yang sah) and ‘a person who have particular skills’.

 At last, the Applicant requested the Constitutional Court to declare the phrase ‘summon’ (mendatangkan) and ‘expert’ (orang ahli) in Article 16 (1) letter g Act of the Indonesian National Police contrary to the 1945 Constitution if it didn’t interpreted ‘if investigators have not found two valid evidences’ (jika penyidik belum menemukan minimal dua alat bukti yang sah) and ‘a person who have particular skills’ (seseorang yang mempunyai keahlian khusus). (Lulu Hanifah/Prasetyo Adi N)

 

---