---

Court’s Registrar Kasianur Sidauruk delivers the copy of Verdict Number 41/PUU-XIII/2015 to Applicant’s Attorney, on Tuesday (20/10) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie

 

 

 

The Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi –MK) declares Muhammad Zainal Arifin’s petition regarding pretrial regulation in Act Number 8 Year 1981 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana –KUHAP) inadmissible. Chief Justice Arief Hidayat reads the Verdict Number 41/PUU-XIII/2015 at verdict announcement session on Tuesday (20/10) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building.

“Judicial verdict, adjudicates and declares Applicant’s petition inadmissible,” said Hidayat reading court verdict accompanied by seven Constitutional Justices.

According to the Court, there is no causal relation between Applicant’s constitutional losses with Act reviewed. Thus, the Applicant has no legal standing to file petition. “Based on consideration above, according to the Court, the Applicant has no legal standing to file petition a quo. Thus, the Court doesn’t consider petition points,” said Constitutional Justice Manahan MP Sitompul reading Court’s Opinion.

In the petition, the Applicant reviews pretrial regulation as stipulated in Article 1 number 10, Article 77, Article 78, Article 82, Article 95, and Article 96 the KUHAP. He considers detrimental by Articles reviewed due to pretrial definition and limited pretrial object, as stipulated in Article 1 number 10 stated:

Pretrial is district courts’ authority to examine and decide by law regarding: (Praperadilan adalah wewenang pengadilan negeri untuk memeriksa dan memutus menurut cara yang diatur dalam undang-undang ini, tentang:)

a. the validity of an arrest or detention at the request of the suspect or suspect family or any other party on the authority of the suspect; (sah atau tidaknya suatu penangkapan dan atau penahanan atas permintaan tersangka atau keluarganya atau pihak lain atas kuasa tersangka;)

b. the validity of investigation termination or prosecution termination upon request for the sake of law and justice (sah atau tidaknya penghentian penyidikan atau penghentian penuntutan atas permintaan demi tegaknya hukum dan keadilan;)

c. request for compensation or rehabilitation by the suspect or his family or any other party on the suspect’s authority whose the case is not brought to trial. (permintaan ganti kerugian atau rehabilitasi oleh tersangka atau keluarganya atau pihak lain atas kuasanya yang perkaranya tidak diajukan ke pengadilan.)

The Applicant argues the validity of searches, confiscation, abroad prevention and bank account blocking needs to be included in pretrial object. The Applicant who served as advocate is potentially got forceful measures such aforementioned. It possibly occurred because advocates could be considered have relation with suspects or defendants. The Applicant cannot file legal remedies if such forceful measures occurred because pretrial definition and objects are still limited.

Based on arguments above, the Applicant requests that Article 1 number 10, Article 77, Article 78, Article 82, Article 95, and Article 96 the KUHAP declared contrary to the 1945 Constitution and have no legal binding if it isn’t interpreted including ‘district courts’ authority to examine and decide by law, regarding the validity of searches, confiscation, abroad prevention, and bank account blocking upon request the injured party’ (‘wewenang pengadilan negeri untuk memeriksa dan memutus menurut cara yang diatur dalam undang-undang ini, tentang sah atau tidaknya penggeledahan, penyitaan, pencegahan ke luar negeri dan pemblokiran rekening atas permintaan pihak yang dirugikan’). (Lulu Anjarsari/Prasetyo Adi N)  

---