Preliminary hearing for case No. 4/PUU-XX/2022 on the judicial review of the Criminal Procedure Code filed by advocate Anita Natalia Manafe, Tuesday (1/18/2022) in the plenary courtroom. Photo by Humas MK/BPE.

---

Tuesday, January 18, 2022 | 19:10 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The ruling hearing for the judicial review of Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Tuesday afternoon, January 18, 2022. The petition for the case No. 4/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by advocate Anita Natalia Manafe.

Through legal counsel Alvin Lim, the Petitioner argued that her constitutional rights had been harmed by the a quo law in relation to termination of investigation, which was said to not be a crime. As such, the Petitioner could not obtain legal certainty because termination of investigation is not the authority of investigators.

“Termination of investigation is not within the investigators’ authorities referred to in Article 5 of the KUHAP, so [it] could be used by the police to violate formal law by terminating investigations,” Lim stressed.

The Petitioner argued the case as a citizen (WNI), as proven by her KTP (identity card), birth certificate, family certificate, and other administrative documents.

“Although the Petitioner is an advocate, [she] does not argue her legal standing as an advocate, but as an individual and a good citizen,” Lim said to the panel of justices led by Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo.

Justices’ Advice

Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo (panel chair) explained investigation to the Petitioner. “Investigation is related to the principles of pro Justitia. There has been too much acts of deprivation of liberty, of both people and goods, so it must be limited, so that someone is not persecuted. In order that they are then not wronged for too long, certainty must be provided immediately. That’s why detainment, first for 20 days, then extended for 30 days, has a limit because it is related to the deprivation of people’s freedom, which cannot be done for a long time without certainty. Moreover, KUHAP adheres to the principle of presumption of innocence. That’s how it is substantially,” he stressed.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams reminded the Petitioner of the importance of consistency between the merit of the case and the petitum. “You must observe this seriously because, if [I’m] not mistaken, the Petitioner intends to add to the investigator’s authority that they not be authorized to terminate investigations,” he said.

He then said that the Petitioner had challenged the police formally. “Therefore, please think it over, whether the norm is the issue or whether it is the implementation,” he said.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih observed the petition’s format. “You have quoted the Constitutional Court Regulation No. 2 of 2021. It details the format of a judicial review petition. However, be meticulous, careful. There is no need to add the requirements for the application form. In the sntandard format, the Court’s authorities are detailed first after the issue is clear. Do not explain the Court’s authorities repeatedly, Mr. [Lim],” she stressed.

Writer        : Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 01/19/2022 14:30 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.

---