---

Principal Applicant Henky Setiabudhi accompanied by Applicant’s Attorney Wahyudi Harsowiyoto delivers petition points at judicial review session on the Criminal Procedure Code, on Thursday (5/11) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie

 

 

 

The Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi –MK) holds preliminary session on Act Number 8 Year 1981 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana –KUHAP), on Thursday (5/11), at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Convict Henky Setiabudhi files petition on Act a quo which registered in Case Number 126/PUU-XIII/2015. He considers harmed by the definition of investigation and inquiry provision, which regulated by Article 1 number 2 and number 4, and Article 5 the Criminal Procedure Code.

In the session led by Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna, Applicant’s Attorney Wahyu Harsowiyoto explains that the Applicant is sentenced by Supreme Court Verdict Number 98K/PID/2015 and the verdict already have legal binding. Harsowiyoto says that the Applicant previously reported to Semarang police by Ariyanto Hadinoto because he gives blank giro for goods payment. Although the report has been revoked, legal process undertaken by the Applicant is still run until the case adjudicated by the Supreme Court. The Applicant assesses the Supreme Court verdict is not in accordance with Article 1 number 2 and number 4, and Article 5 the KUHAP, because the sentencing basis has been revoked by the complainant.

“In Applicant’s case, the investigation use police report that has been revoked or annulled. It no longer applicable because an agreement has been made, however the investigators still use the report to sentence the Applicant,” said Wahyu.

On that basis, the Applicant requests the Court that district court verdict until cessation level adjudicated based on revoked/annulled police report. The Applicant also requests that the Supreme Court Verdict which applied to him declared contrary to Article 1 number 2, Article 1 number 4, Article 5 the KUHAP and the Constitution. Moreover, the Applicant requests the Court to revise to Article 1 number 2, Article 1 number 4, and Article 5 the KUHAP.

Regarding the request, Constitutional Justice Palguna explains that the Constitutional Court only reviews norm constitutionality. “We have no authority to assess the validity of law enforcement,” said Palguna.

Constitutional Justice Aswanto also delivers similar response. According to him, the Applicant has stated in the petition that their demands are not included in Constitutional Court’s authority. “The Constitutional Court will be authorized to review the petition if there is any contradiction on Act norms with the Constitution,” said Aswanto.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo highlights petition demands. He considers the demands are inappropriate. “The demand that closely related to petition points is only the number 4,” said him.       

Justice Panel then provides choice to the Applicants, whether or not he wants to process the petition further. “Please reconsidered on whether or not you want to process the petition in the Court, in order to be revised or re-filed to further session, or even not processed the petition to further session,” said Suhartoyo. (Ilham/IR/Prasetyo Adi N)

---