Chief Justice Anwar Usman pounding gavel after reading out the ruling at the judicial review hearing of the Criminal Procedure Code for case No. 53/PUU-XIX/2021, Wednesday (12/15/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Ilham W. M.

---

Wednesday, December 15, 2021 | 15:48 WIB

The Constitutional Court (MK) held a ruling hearing for the judicial review of Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) for the case No. 53/PUU-XIX/2021 on Wednesday, December 15, 2021 in the plenary courtroom. The petition was filed by Anita Natalia Manafe, who challenged 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.”

She had made a report of a scam to the police, numbered TBL/1860/IV/YAN.2.5/2021/SPKT PMJ, on April 7, 2021 (vide exhibit P-6). The investigation was terminated based on the investigation termination warrant (SP3) No. SP2.Lid/138/VIII/2021/Ditreskrimum dated August 16 as it was declared not a criminal case. She then asked for clarification and filed an objection to the termination. She believed Article 77 letter a of the KUHAP did not provide any mechanism to review whether an investigation termination is valid, which resulted in her losing the right to fair legal certainty on this legal process.

Based on those arguments, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare Article 77 letter a of the KUHAP unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as not interpreted to mean “whether or not an arrest, detention, seizure, termination of an examination or investigation or prosecution or determination of a suspect is valid.”

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

Challenged Multiple Times

In its legal considerations, the Court asserted that Article 77 letter a of the KUHAP has been challenged multiple times—in cases No. 102/PUU-XI/2013, 67/PUU-XII/2014, 35/PUUXIII/2015, 44/PUU-XIII/2015, 21/PUU-XII/2014, and 9/PUU-VII/2019.

In its considerations in Decision No. 9/PUU-VII/2019, it emphasized that the termination of examination as one of the stages in the examination cannot be used as an object of a pretrial review because, despite being a unity, examination and investigation have different characteristics and implications. Examination by investigators is not pro Justitia, so it cannot be used as an object of a pretrial because therein are matters related to coercive measures that lead to the deprivation of a person’s human rights.

Also read: Petitioner of Criminal Procedure Code Reduces Number of Legal Counsels

“As such, the legal considerations of the Constitutional Court Decision No. 9/PUU-VII/2019 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the Petitioner’s petition in the a quo case,” Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul emphasized.

Therefore, the Petitioner’s argument on the unconstitutionality of Article 77 letter a of the KUHAP insofar as interpreted to include examination is legally groundless.

“[The Court] rejected the Petitioner’s petition in its entirety,” said Chief Justice Anwar Usman alongside the other eight constitutional justices, reading out the verdict.

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

Translation uploaded on 12/16/2021 13:11 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.

---