Petitioners in the revision hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), Tuesday (3/3) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—One of the Petitioners, Muhammad Ibnu Fajar Rahim, delivered the revised petition in the judicial review hearing of Article 72 and Article 143 paragraph (4) of Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) at the Constitutional Court on Tuesday (3/3/2020).

"There are a number of improvements to our petition. The first revision is that the word ‘Petitioner’ was changed to ‘Petitioners.’ Next, we deleted the introduction to the petition so as not to follow the format of a thesis," said Muhammad Ibnu Fajar Rahim along with other Petitioners, Sandi Handika and Danang Yuda Prawira.

"We added the legal standing of the Petitioners. On the one hand, as Indonesian citizens who potentially become suspects at any time. On the other hand, […] as taxpayers based on the previous Constitutional Court Decision stating that taxpaying citizens are deemed to have an interest in accordance with the provisions of the Constitutional Court Law," Ibnu Fajar Rahim said before the panel of justices consisting of Constitutional Justices Aswanto (chairman), Arief Hidayat (member), and Manahan M. P. Sitompul (member). 

Also read: Discrepancy in Provisions on Investigation Report Copy Challenged 

The Petitioners of case No. 12/PUU-XVIII/2020 argued that Article 143 paragraph (4) of the KUHAP and its elucidation state that for every case delegated by a public prosecutor to a court, at the same time the public prosecutor is obliged to provide a case transfer letter, indictment, and dossier to the suspect or their attorney or legal counsel and investigators for all types of cases.

Article 72 of the KUHAP and its elucidation principally state the suspect or legal counsel\\'s right to request investigation report copy of the suspect at the investigation level, dossier, and indictment at the prosecution level, as well as dossier including judge\\'s ruling at the examination level at the court.

An antinomy between both articles led to the Petitioners as Indonesian citizens when be declared a suspect or defendant to potentially not receive legal certainty of whether the provision of dossier to said suspect or defendant is a negative right upon the suspect or defendant\\'s request or a positive right of the public prosecutor. Based on this argument, the Petitioners believe that the a quo articles contradict Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution and not providing legal certainty. (Nano Tresna Arfana/NRA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

Translation uploaded on 3/4/2020