Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul chairing the panel judicial review hearing of Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code, Wednesday (11/3/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Panji.

---

Wednesday, November 3, 2021 | 14:10 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) held a petition revision hearing for the judicial review of Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) on Wednesday, November 3, 2021 for the case No. 53/PUU-XIX/2021. The panel hearing was presided over by Constitutional Justices Manahan M. P. Sitompul (chair), Arief Hidayat, and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh.

Represented by legal counsels Alvin Lim, the Petitioner conveyed the revisions to the petition, including reduction in the number of legal counsels to five.

“Five legal counsels for the Petitioner have signed the power of attorney,” he said to Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul virtually.

He also elaborated on the Petitioner’s legal standing as an individual who had made a report of an alleged scam in a case concerning a general crime as well as the proof such as her identification. The Petitioner, Lim said, had also elaborated on the background of the petition.

Also read: District Court Not Terminated Investigation, Criminal Procedure Code Challenged

The petition No. 53/PUU-XIX/2021 on the judicial review of Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) was filed by Anita Natalia Manafe, who challenges Article 77 letter a of the KUHAP, which reads, “A court of first instance has the authority to examine and decide, in line with the provisions contained in this law: a. whether or not an arrest, detention, termination of an examination or prosecution is valid.”

At a preliminary hearing on Thursday, October 21, 2021, the Petitioner through legal counsels Alvin Lim and colleagues asserted her constitutional loss due to the provision of Article 77 letter a of the KUHAP in relation to the authority of the district court (Pengadilan Negeri) to conduct a pretrial. She was disadvantaged by the termination of investigation by investigators based on the Notification of the Investigation No. B/2817/VIII/RES.1.11/2021/Ditreskrimum in the police report No. LP/1860/IV/YAN2.5/2021/SPKT PMJ dated April 7, 2021 as the a quo article doesn’t mention the district court’s authority to examine and terminate an investigation by investigators in a pretrial.

“In the a quo article, the district court is only authorized to examine and terminate an investigation, but it doesn’t mention the district court’s authority to examine and terminate an investigation as evidenced by an investigation termination warrant,” Lim said to the justice panel led by Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul.

Based on Article 77 letter a of the KUHAP, the district court is only authorized to examine and decide on an SP3 (investigation termination warrant). However, it doesn’t mention the district court’s authority to examine and decide on an SP2 Lid (investigation termination warrant). This provision has violated the Petitioner’s constitutional rights as a request for pretrial can be filed in an investigation to check whether there is a formal violation. However, amid a police investigation, a request for pretrial cannot be filed to the district court, so there is no fair legal certainty in the event that a formal mistake occur during a police investigation, as the Petitioner had experienced.

The Petitioner filed an objection to an investigation termination warrant due to alleged formal violation, one of which being the Greater Jakarta Metropolitan Regional Police (Polda Metro Jaya) investigators rejecting to examine the Petitioner’s key witness. Therefore, the Petitioner feels that the Police investigators were acting arbitrarily when they actually have a duty to find out whether a criminal element has occurred and an investigation is to be carried out.

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

Translation uploaded on 11/4/2021 21:26 WIB

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

---