The plenary hearing of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), Monday (4/12) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

Judicial review of Article 162 paragraphs (1) and (2) of Law No. 8/1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) on Monday (4/12) had to be postponed. The Petitioner could not present expert and witness as planned in the previous session.

"The agenda of the hearing today should be to hear the statements of the House of Representatives (DPR) as well as Expert and Witness of the Petitioner. However, DPR is not present and the Petitioner filed a letter will stating he would not present experts or witnesses. Is that correct?" asked Deputy Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court (MK) Anwar Usman.

This was confirmed by one of the Petitioner\'s attorneys, Gugum Ridho Putra. He asserted that the Petitioner would not present Expert or Witness in the hearing. "Yes, Your Honor. We apologize because last week we had been provided time for expert and witness examination. However, there were differences of opinion in the team on whether to present them or not. Then it was decided only this morning that the Petitioner would not present experts and witnesses. Thank you, Your Honor," said Gugum.

As a result, Justice Anwar Usman declared the hearing for the case complete. "Each party should deliver a conclusion at the latest seven working days since today\'s session concludes. Thus, the hearing is completed and closed," said Anwar.

Previously, former DPR member from the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) Emir Moeis filed case No. 74/PUU-XV/2017. The Petitioner explained that Article 162 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code states that a witness may be absent from a hearing and may submit his/her testimony in writing. However, the testimony is considered equal in value as a testimony given at the hearing. The Petitioner claims that the provision potentially violates the constitutional rights of a defendant.  For this reason, the Petitioner is of the opinion that a witness may be absent from a trial and can submit their written statement.

In addition, according to the Petitioner, the article is no longer relevant. With current technological developments, if any witnesses cannot come to court for reasons in accordance with the a quo law, visual communication can be carried out. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)