Chief Justice Anwar Usman opening the judicial review hearing of Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code to hear the House of Representatives, Monday (5/30/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

Monday, May 30, 2022 | 12:55 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) does not stipulate a deadline for the public prosecutor to prepare a new indictment in response to an indictment that has been declared null and void by the court. It only stipulates the formal and material requirements for the preparation of the indictment, so as long as the subject matter of the case has not been further examined, the public prosecutor can make a new indictment in the related case, said House (DPR) Commission III member Taufik Basari at judicial review hearing of the KUHAP on Monday, May 30, 2022.

The case No. 28/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by Umar Husni, Director of PT Karya Jaya Satria, who asserted that Article 143 paragraph (3) of the KUHAP contradicted Article 1 paragraph (3) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.  

Also read: Provision on Indictment in Criminal Procedure Code Challenged

Taufik further said that the indictment is part of the criminal procedure law and based on the KUHAP, it serves as the judge’s basis for examination at trial and to make a decision. In relation to the Petitioner’s concrete cases in several courts, the House was of the opinion that the Petitioner’s losses and th e injustice he experienced were not the result of the phrase in the norm being petitioned.

“Actually, this happened as a result of the implementation of the KUHAP by law enforcement, which led to injustice to the Petitioner. Even if it was true due to the ambiguity of the norm being petitioned, the Constitutional Court can provide a clearer interpretation. However, if what the Petitioner experienced was misapplication of the law, he may take other legal remedies to obtain justice. Therefore, the House is of the opinion that [the case] is not a matter of the constitutionality of the norm, so it must be resolved at the prosecutor’s office,” said Taufik virtually at the hearing presided over by Chief Justice Anwar Usman and the other eight constitutional justices.

Also read: Petitioner of Provision on Indictment in Criminal Procedure Code Strengthens Arguments

Before concluding the hearing, Justice Anwar announced that the next hearing would take place on Thursday, June 9 at 11:00 WIB.

The Petitioner had received indictments that had been declared legally invalid in a criminal case on taxation. He received three indictments, one from the District Court of Purwokertwo, two from the High Court of Semarang. He believes he could one day receive the fourth, fifth indictments and so on without any clear limits on the revision of indictments that are declared legally invalid by a court. However, Wahyu added, the issue in this concrete case is that those invalid indictments could then be revised by the public prosecutor or be returned to an investigation.

Reflecting on the criminal case process with the three previous indictments, the Petitioner believes it showed that the public prosecutor was deadlocked. The impasse can only be resolved if the investigation process is restarted and a comprehensive case file is organized and compiled so that the indictment is not declared legally invalid.

He also believes the a quo law has been interpreted to mean that there has not been any limitation for the public prosecutor in revising and bringing the indictment that has been declared null and void. They could also contest the court’s decision, following Article 156 paragraph (3) of the KUHAP. That way, swift, simple, and cost-effective trial process did not happen and the Petitioner has not obtained legal certainty.

The Petitioner believes lack of limitation in the revision of indictment could impair the sense of justice and legal certainty because the public prosecutor could file an indictment for the fourth time and there could be a counter for the fourth time. Therefore, he requested that the Court declare the phrase “legally invalid” in Article 143 paragraph (3) of the KUHAP conditionally unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as not be interpreted “the case be returned to the investigator with revision limited to only 1 (one) time.”

Writer       : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Fitri Yuliana
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 5/30/2022 15:27 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.

---