Preliminary judicial review hearing of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), Wednesday (30/1) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court (MK) held the preliminary judicial review hearing of Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) on Wednesday (30/1/2019) afternoon. The case No. 9/PUU-XVII/2019 was petitioned by advocates and Muslim activists in the Alliance of Citizen Movements (Aliansi Anak Bangsa). However, the session was postponed because the Petitioners had not received the court summons.

Chairman of the panel Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna said that the summons had been sent. “Therefore, the Court will re-send the court summons,” he said. The Court had not been able to conclude the Petitioners’ commitment in filing the petition.

The Petitioners requested the judicial review of Article 77 letter a of the Criminal Procedure Code along the phrase “termination of an examination.” Article 77 letter a of the Criminal Procedure Code reads, “whether or not an arrest, detention, termination of an examination or prosecution is valid.” The Petitioners argued that they had been harmed by the enactment of the Code along the phrase “termination of an examination.” This is because the norm had limited and eliminated the meaning of the control function in the law enforcement of criminal procedure, because in essence examination is inseparable from investigation. The enactment of the phrase was deemed to have eliminated the legal guarantee and protection of the Petitioners as witness who reported a criminal offense.

The Petitioners reported an alleged blasphemy incident committed by Sukmawati Soekarno Putri in a concrete case dated April 4, 2018. However on July 9, 2018, the examination of the Petitioners\' report was terminated on the grounds that the case was not deemed a criminal act. After the investigation was stopped by the National Police Criminal Investigation Unit, the Petitioners submitted a pre-trial application in the South Jakarta District Court, which was later rejected by the panel of judges, who argued that the termination of the investigation was not included in the pre-trial object as stated in Article 77 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Because the court ruling, the Petitioners argued that the phrase "termination of an examination" must also be interpreted as termination of examination to protect the rights of the Petitioners as reporting witnesses, whose reports were dismissed during the investigation process, must allow them to claim their rights to obtain legal defense through pre-trial institutions that have control function in the examination of criminal cases. Based on those arguments, the Petitioners requested that the Court declare the impugned article not having legal force and contrary to the 1945 Constitution. (Arif Satriantoro/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)