---

Attorneys for the Petitioners explaining the subject of the petition in the preliminary material hearing of Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedural Code, Monday (28/10) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held the preliminary examination hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedural Code (KUHAP) on Monday (28/10/2019). The case No. 60/PUU-XVII/2019 was petitioned by Andrias Lutfi Susiyanto and Evan Waluyo Rostanadji.

The Petitioners challenged Article 109 paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code because they do not explain in detail the deadline of investigation conducted by investigators. "If the investigation deadline has passed, investigators are legally obliged to stop the investigation," said the Petitioners\' attorney Yassiro Ardhana Rahman.

Yassiro said that Andrias Lutfi Susiyanto, teacher of the private school SD Taman Harapan, was declared a suspect for violating Article 335 of KUHAP. The incident started with an argument between the teachers SD Taman Harapan, including the Petitioner, and the legal team of the school’s former principal. The argument led to the Petitioner being reported to the criminal detective unit (Satreskrim) of the subprecinct police (Polsek) of Klojen, Malang City in January 2018.

"However, until now the investigation dossier has not been handed over to the public prosecutor. The Petitioners believe this caused legal uncertainty that harmed the Petitioner\'s constitutional rights," Yassiro said. 

Evan Waluyo Rostanadji, employee at Amolongo gold shop, had been arrested by the Satreskrim of Mimika precinct police (Polres) and then declared a suspect on December 19, 2018. He had been in custody for 120 days, but the dossier has not been handed over to the public prosecutor. Until the petition was filed, the Petitioner had not received any information on the progress of that case, leading to legal uncertainty that harmed the Petitioner\'s constitutional rights.

Therefore, in their petitum, the Petitioners requested that the Constitutional Court declare the articles unconstitutional for not including and explaining in detail the deadline for investigations conducted by investigators. 

In response, Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna as chairman of the plenary hearing advised the Petitioners to study the decisions of the Constitutional Court relating to the substance being reviewed. "Please observe [it]. If I\'m not mistaken, this provision has already been reviewed at the Court. You need to check [it] to make an argument so that your petition is not in vain," he said.

Justice Palguna also advised the Petitioners to not be verbose in explaining the authorities of the Constitutional Court. "Make [it] simple. The legal standing, it is important elaborate [it] but there is no need to make it complicated. It is sufficient to explain the status of the Petitioners, in this case as individual Indonesian citizens. Then you explain your constitutional rights that have been impaired by the enactment of the law being reviewed," he explained.

Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih also reminded that the article has been reviewed and decided by the Court. "What else do you want to review? It needs to be described in relation to the decisions of the Constitutional Court," she said. (Nano Tresna Arfana/NRA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

---