---

Justice and Human Rights Ministry’s Director for legislation design (Direktur Perancangan Peraturan Perundang-Undangan Kemenkumham) Dhahana Putra (heading to the podium) delivers Government’s testiomony at judicial review session on the Criminal Procedure Code and Act of the Corruption Eradication Commission, on Tuesday (20/10) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie

 

 

 

The Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi –MK) holds further judicial review session on Act No. 8 Year 1981 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana –KUHAP) and Act No.30 Year 2002 of the Corruption Eradication Commission (Undang-Undang Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi –UU KPK) with agenda hearing Government’s testimony, on Tuesday (20/10) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. As known, Morotai Regent Rusli Sibua concerns on case submission promptness regulation. His petition is registered in Case Number 102/PUU-XIII/2015.

Representing the Government, Justice and Human Rights Ministry’s Director for legislation design (Direktur Perancangan Peraturan Perundang-Undangan Kemenkumham) Dhahana Putra says that Applicant’s problem is more related to constitutional complaint, instead of to constitutional review. Thus, Putra assesses the Applicant has no legal standing and the Court supposes to declare Applicant’s petition inadmissible.

“It is appropriate if Your Honor Head of Justice Panel of the Constitutional Court wisely declares Applicant’s petition inadmissible (niet ontvankelijk verklaard),” said Putra in front of Justice Panel led by Chief Justice Arief Hidayat.

Regarding Applicant’s arguments stating the phrase ‘promptly submitted to court’ (‘segera dimajukan ke pengadilan’) in Article 50 (2) and (3) the KUHAP is often misinterpreted by investigators, Putra argues that the Applicant shall understand the phrase as a whole. According to Putra, the Article is intended to prevent protracted completion that causes legal uncertainty. “Criminal case handling needs to be promptly submitted to court, in order to grant legal certainty,” said Putra.

Moreover, Putra argues that the Article aimed at realizing quick, simple, and low-cost justice. Regarding Applicant’s demand that Article 50 (1) and (2) Act of the Corruption Eradication Commission declared conditionally unconstitutional, Putra assesses such demand is incorrect. He argues that Article 50 (1) and (2) Act of the Corruption Eradication Commission which regulates time limit for pretrial filing until case dossier (berkas perkara) submitted to district court by general prosecutors, is indeed provide human rights protection to suspects and defendants.

Responding the testimony, Constitutional Justice Manahan MP Sitompul asks about legal certainty referred by the Government. According to him, the Government declares Articles reviewed aimed at legal certainty for suspects, but in the other hands suspects’ rights to file pretrial is not accommodated.

“Applicant’s rights to file pretrial have been ignored. What is the reason that the Government still considers the Article has provided legal certainty for suspects or defendants?” Sitompul asked.

Constitutional Justice Patrialis Akbar also asks about case submission implementation which conducted by general prosecutors. According to Akbar, Act of the Corruption Eradication Commission provides time limit of case submission to court; which is 14 days, but there is no time limit regulated in the KUHAP. “Is there any case that doesn’t promptly submit by general prosecutors? Is there any standard in the implementation of case submission or the standard is the same with standardization stated in Act of the Corruption Eradication Commission?” said Akbar.   

Regarding the questions, the Government says they will provide written answers that will be submitted to Court’s Registrar. The next session will be scheduled on Wednesday (28/10) with agenda hearing the House of Representatives’, two Applicant’s experts’ and three Applicant’s witnesses’ testimony.  

As known, the Applicant reviews Article 50 (2) and (3), Article 82 (1) letter d, Article 137, Article 143 (1) the KUHAP as well as Article 52 (1) and (2) Act of the Corruption Eradication Commission. The Applicant says the Articles reviewed have been misinterpreted in law enforcement, particularly in bribery case handling which alleged to the Applicant. Due to the suspect naming applied to him, the Applicant files pretrial request. However, the Applicant assumes the KPK has deliberate intention to abort his pretrial request

 

“They (the KPK, ed.) deliberately want to abort the pretrial, under reason that the case is already handed over. In fact, we file pretrial before Regent Rusli examined as suspect, even there is no examination at that time. Thus, we assess it (case devolution, ed.) violates the law, the KUHAP, and even the KPK standard operating procedure,” said Applicant’s Attorney Ahmad Rifai at preliminary session on Wednesday (9/9). (Panji Erawan/IR/Prasetyo Adi N)

---