---

Petitioner H. R. Abdussalam and attorneys explaining the petition revision in the judicial review hearing of Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) on Monday (20/7) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held a petition revision hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) on Monday, July 20, 2020 under health protocols on COVID-19. The hearing was presided over by Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul along with Justices Arief Hidayat and Enny Nurbaningsih.

Petitioner of case No. 46/PUU-XVIII/2020 Prof H.R. Abdussalam added one more petitioner by the name of Syamsudin, whose power of attorney was questioned by the justices. "Syamsudin as Petitioner must provide a power of attorney to his attorneys for court proceedings at the Constitutional Court. However, only Prof. Abdussalam conveyed the revision to the petition in the court. We will decide in the justice deliberation meeting whether to allow Petitioner II and his attorney to be included in this petition. Please submit a power of attorney later on," Justice Arief explained.

The Petitioner revised the posita, the reasons to the petition, and the petitum. However, the legal standing and legal facts were unchanged.

Also read: Justice Says Petition on Criminal Procedure Code Focus Too Much on Concrete Cases 

Petitioner H. R. Abdussalam had requested a material review of Article 109 paragraph (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which reads, "In the event that the investigator has ended an investigation in the absence of sufficient evidence or the does not constitute a criminal act or the investigation has been terminated by law, the investigator informs the public prosecutor, the suspect, or his/her family about the matter."

He is a former National Police investigator, a former Kopkamtib (Operational Command for the Restoration of Security and Order) investigator, and a former investigator of corruption directly under the Attorney General, as well as a researcher and author.

The Petitioner made a report No. LP/05/I/2015/Bareskrim of fraud regarding a tenement unit to the police on January 6, 2015, which was then handed over to the Jakarta Police Chief with letter No. B/37/Ops/I/2015/Bareskrim on January 7, 2016 regarding Transfer of Police Report. However, the Jakarta Police Investigator then issued an Investigation Termination Letter No. S.Tap/566/VII/Ditreskrimum on July 13, 2015 without giving him a copy to date, leading him to deem the investigation process violating existing procedures.

"Upon termination of the investigation of the report, the Petitioner filed a pre-trial motion but was rejected by the Decision of the South Jakarta District Court No. 88/PidPraper/2015/PN.Jkt.Sel dated October 6, 2015. Then the Petitioner filed a case review petition to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court through the Chairman of the South Jakarta District Court and based on the Case Review Decision No. 39 PK/PID/2016 the petition was dismissed," he explained to the panel of justices of the Constitutional Court in the preliminary hearing.

He then received a copy of the letter from the Jakarta Police Police Criminal Investigations Directorate (Ditreskrimum) No. R/1529/II/2020/Ditreskrimum dated February 29, 2020 regarding Notification of Termination of Investigation, without a stipulation letter of termination of the investigation. He then used this to file a pre-trial motion to the Head of the South Jakarta District Court on March 12, 2020. The South Jakarta District Court rejected the motion with Decision No. 28/Pid.Pra/2020/PN.Jkt.Sel, dated April 28, 2020.

The decision states that the Respondent had issued investigation termination warrant (SPPP) No. SPPP/653/II/2020/Dit.Reskrimum dated February 29, 2020 and Stipulation Letter No. S.Tap/607/II/2020/Dit. Reskrimum dated February 29, 2020, which the Petitioner never received. The Petitioner argued that his constitutional rights have been violated by the investigation process that had went on for 3 years and 3 months and was terminated by the enactment of Article 109 paragraph (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, he believes the article doesn’t provide protection and legal certainty.

The Petitioner argued that the phrase “the investigator informs the public prosecutor, the suspect, or his/her family about the matter” in Article 109 paragraph (2) is detrimental to him. In the revised petition, he requested that the Court declare the article unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as not stating phrase “the investigator informs the public prosecutor, the suspect, or his/her family about the matter.”

Writer: Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor: Nur R.
PR: Raisa
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 7/21/2020 13:14 WIB

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case where any differences occur between the English and the Indonesian version, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---