Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul reading out the legal considerations in the ruling hearing of the judicial review of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), Wednesday (29/1) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) did not accept the judicial review petition of Law Number 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP in the ruling hearing on Wednesday(29/1/2020) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. State civil apparatus (ASN) Erko Mojra challenged Article 197 paragraph (1) letters b, c, d, e, f, h, and paragraph (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP).

Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul read out the legal considerations of case No. 69/PUU-XVII/2019 that the petition only contains the authorities of the Court as well as the legal standing and petitum without reason for the petition, making it lack the foundation to review the material content of the article being questioned. In addition, Justice Manahan explained, the Petitioner requested that the Court add a norm in Article 197 paragraph (1) letters b, c, d, e, f, h, and paragraph (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, making the petition even more unclear.

In the hearing on November 19, 2019, the justices had recommended that the Petitioner elaborate the clear reason to the unconstitutionality of the article and shorten the elaboration on his concrete case. However, the revised petition that the Court received on December 2, 2019 remained unclear because the reason for the petition was combined with a lengthy description of the Petitioner\'s concrete case.

"As stipulated in Article 51A paragraph (2) of the Constitutional Court Law and Article 5 paragraph (1) of PMK 06/2005, if the Petitioner does not clearly explain the reasons for the conflict between the norms being reviewed and the 1945 Constitution, which should be contained in the reasons for the petition, the Petitioner\'s petition must be declared unclear or vague," said Justice Manahan before the hearing chaired by Chief Justice Anwar Usman along with the other seven constitutional justices.

The Petitioner conveyed is an Indonesian citizen who was a Defendant based on the Decision of the Kasongan District Court No. 99/Pid.Sus/2018/PN.Ksn dated April 29, 2019, affirmed by the Decision of the Palangkaraya High Court Number 35/PID.SUS/2019/PT.PLK dated June 13, 2019, and reaffirmed by the Decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number 3303 K/Pid.Sus/2019 dated October 17, 2019. He felt his constitutional rights were violated by the enactment of the phrase "batal demi hukum" ("null and void") in Article 197 paragraph (2) in conjunction with Article 197 paragraph (1) letters b, c, d, e, f, h of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The Petitioner said that he had not yet received a copy of the cassation decision. When a copy has been sent and received by the litigating parties, the decision will have permanent legal force (inkracht van gewijsde). According to him, the phrase "null and void" in Article 197 paragraph (2) in conjunction with Article 197 paragraph (1) l letters b, c, d, e, f, h of the Criminal Procedure Code is unclear, indecisive, ambiguous, and multi-interpretative, thus counterproductive to the objectives, one of which is to provide protection for human rights. The phrase does not provide certainty and fair legal protection for the Petitioner. (Sri Pujianti/NRA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti