---

Applicant Hendku Setiabudhi delivers revision points at revision session on Act of the Criminal Procedure Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana –a KUHAP), on Wednesday (18/11) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ifa

 

 

 

Applicant Hendku Setiabudhi who reviews Act Number 8 Year 1981 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana –KUHAP) delivers revision points on Wednesday (18/11) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. On the second session led by Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna, he delivers that he doesn’t change anything in his petition which registered in Case Number 126/PUU-XIII/2015.

Constitutional Justice Palguna clarifies the petition by asking whether the petition is final. “By your petition that has been submitted to us, you consider that the petition is final and without any further revision. Is that it?” asked Palguna which later confirmed by the Applicant.

After the confirmation, Palguna who accompanied by Constitutional Justice Patrialis Akbar and Suhartoyo reiterates that Applicant’s petition is a concrete case; Applicant’s constitutional loss is caused by inappropriate implementation, rather than by Act norms. Palguna reminds the Applicant that the petition can be revised by showing norm contradiction in order to persuade Justice Panel. However, the Applicant doesn’t conduct revision.

“The petition essentially concerns on concrete case, as we had said in previous session. There are some technical matters that can be revised. However because the petition is considered final, we receive unrevised petition,” said Palguna.

After receiving the final petition, Palguna says that Justice Panel will deliver today’s session result to the Justice’s Consultative Meeting for further process. The Applicant will be notified on whether or not Justice Panel decides the petition may pass further proceedings.

Previously, the Applicant filed petition towards Article 1 number 2 and number 4, and Article 5 the KUHAP which regulate the definition of investigation and inquiry, as well as investigator’s authority. The Applicant had been sentenced by Supreme Court Verdict Number 98K/PID/2015 which legally bound. He reported to Semarang police by Ariyanto Hadinoto because he gave 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 Although the report has been revoked, legal process undertaken by the Applicant is still run until the case adjudicated by the Supreme Court.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.

The Applicant argued that police’s and general prosecutor’s investigation was on basis of police report that had been revoked or cancelled. According to the Applicant, the police report was no longer valid because the Applicant and complainant had already reached agreement. However, the investigators still used the report to sentence the Applicant.

Based on the arguments aforementioned, the Applicant requested the Court that district court verdict until cessation level should be adjudicated on the basis of revoked/annulled police report. The Applicant also requested 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 requested the Court to revise to Article 1 number 2, Article 1 number 4, and Article 5 the KUHAP. (Yusti Nurul Agustin/IR/Prasetyo Adi N)

 

 

---