Panel hearing of petition revision of judicial review of the Criminal Code (KUHP), Wednesday (15/11) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court (MK) held the second hearing of judicial review of Article 374 of the Criminal Code (KUHP), Wednesday (15/11). The agenda of the hearing of Case No. 83/PUU-XV/2017 was to hear the petition revision.

The Petitioner\'s legal counsel Andi Firasadi stated that the legal standing had been revised, albeit substantially similar [to the previous one]. He explained that there was an addition, description of the causal relationship between the Petitioner and the Petitioner\'s interest and the case at hand.

Regarding the Principal Issue of the Petition, Andi explained briefly the fact that the Petitioner received material harm. "The Constitutional Court do not hear facts, but the facts were caused by the unclear interpretation of the law," he said during the hearing presided over by the Constitution Saldi Isra.

Sugihartoyo, the Petitioner, is an Indonesian individual who feels aggrieved because he was declared a suspect by the investigator on an alleged embezzlement in office. Article 374 of the Criminal Code is considered to contain obscure legal norms. The clause “on account of his personal service or of his procession or for monetary compensation” as long as not interpreted as a criminal report against the case of the a quo article requiring a civil relationship, it clearly causes legal uncertainty due to misreporting. In addition, there is a different treatment to the Petitioner in the criminal justice process, i.e. a similar case of investigation process awaiting the civil process where in the case of the Petitioner he had immediately been named suspect without awaiting civil trial process. (ARS/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)