Panel judicial review hearing of the Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), Wednesday 207/2) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Tugafo.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held the third judicial review hearing of Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) onWednesday (20/2/2019). The session of case No. 9/PUU-XVII/2019 had been scheduled to hear the petition revision.

Legal counsel of the Petitioners Arvid Martdwisaktyo explained several points of the revision, including the Petitioners’ exploring the definitions of “examination” and “investigation.” “On Article 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code, we assert that examination and investigation are an inseparable, connected unity,” he explained.

In relation to legal standing, the Petitioners affirmed that the petition was filed by individual citizens, as proven through identity cards.

The case No. 9/PUU-XVII/2019 was petitioned by advocates and Muslim activists in the Alliance of Citizen Movements (Aliansi Anak Bangsa). 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. (Arif Satriantoro/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)