Chief Justice Anwar Usman hammering the gavel after reading out the verdict for the judicial review of the Criminal Procedure Code at a plenary ruling hearing, Wednesday (4/20/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ilham W. M.

---

Wednesday, April 20, 2022 | 15:07 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) decided to reject the entire judicial review petition of Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP). “[The Court] adjudicated to reject the Petitioner’s petition in its entirety,” said Chief Justice Anwar Usman alongside the other constitutional justices at the ruling hearing for case No. 4/PUU-XX/2022 on Wednesday afternoon, April 20, 2022.

The petition was filed by advocate Anita Natalia Manafe as an Indonesian citizen (WNI), who felt 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. She argued that it had harmed her constitutional right to fair legal certainty in fighting for her rights pursuant to Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

The Petitioner had argued that the KUHAP did not clearly explain the investigation and research. She believed investigation must be carried out thoroughly by first collecting witness statements and evidence so that after the it is complete, investigators can to carry out the investigation, which will determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support the report of the crime or not, as clearly stated in Article 7 of the KUHAP. She also believed that by not stating the investigator’s authority to terminate the investigation explicitly, the legislatures clearly did not want any investigation termination, so Article 5 paragraph (1) letter a of the KUHAP did not include such an authority.

Also read:

Advocate Questions Termination of Investigation in Criminal Procedure Code 

Petitioner of Criminal Procedure Code Pushes Ahead without Petition Revision

Court’s Considerations

The Court asserted in the considerations that although termination of investigation by the investigator is not explicitly stated in Article 5 paragraph (1) letter a of the KUHAP, it is not unconstitutional. In addition, any report of alleged crime could be dismissed if a research concluded that the evidence is not enough to warrant an investigation.

Likewise, there is a possibility that an investigation that has been terminated is reopened after a report of new evidence. Thus, the absence of provision on investigation termination in Article 5 paragraph (1) letter a of the KUHAP did not impair the Petitioner’s constitutional rights as report-er to obtain justice.

The Court believed that in relation to the principles of state administrative law in casu although investigation termination is not regulated in the KUHAP, it gave state administrative officials, in this case the national Police Chief, discretion in regulating matters that have not been stated in statutory legislation. The national Police Chief has also issued circular letter on the termination of investigation.

“Based on those reasons, the Court is of the opinion that although Article 5 paragraph (1) letter a of the KUHAP is not added with the phrase ‘do not terminate investigation’ as the Petitioner argued, the a quo norm has provided fair legal certainty, thus is not unconstitutional. Therefore, the Petitioner’s arguments are legally unwarranted in its entirety,” Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo stresse, reading out the Court’s opinion.

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

Translation uploaded on 4/20/2022 15:34 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.

---