The Petitioners’ legal counsel appearing before the Court virtually at the judicial review hearing of No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code, Wednesday (6/8/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

Wednesday, June 8, 2022 | 14:32 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) held another judicial review hearing of Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) on Wednesday, June 8, 2022. The case No. 61/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by Octolin H. Hutagalung and 11 other petitioners.

One of the Petitioners’ legal counsels, Deasiska Biki, conveyed the revisions to the petition, including the revision of the title of the petition to “Material Judicial Review Petition of Chapter VI Article 54 of Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code against Article 28D Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.”

In addition, the Petitioners revised the posita of the petition by strengthening their argument. They had also revised the petition format following the Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 2 of 2021 by removing the legal facts and conclusion in the petitum.

“The Petitioners have also revised and improved their legal standing following the advice of the panel of justices to study the Constitutional Court Decision No. 10/PUU-VIII/2010 and Decision No. 17/PUU-VIII/2010. We tried to improve the legal standing by focusing on the constitutional rights and constitutional impairment,” Biki said before the panel chaired by Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo.

Also read: Deemed Restrictive, Criminal Procedure Code Challenged by Advocates

The Petitioners, who are advocates, challenge Article 54 of the KUHAP, which reads, “In the interest of defense, a suspect or defendant shall have the right to legal assistance from one or more legal advisers during the period and at every level of examination, according to the procedure determined by this law.”

They believe that in a criminal case, advocates are often hired to assist someone who reports a crime, the reported, a witness, a suspect, or a defendant. They believe that the enactment of Article 54 of the KUHAP has led to legal uncertainty for advocates in performing their profession since there are no provisions in the KUHAP that regulates the rights of a witness or a person of interest to legal aid and assistance from a legal counsel in offering testimony before investigators in the police, the prosecutor’s office, or the KPK (Corruption Eradication Commission). Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioners requested that the Court declare Article 54 of the KUHAP conditionally constitutional insofar as it be interpreted to include the witness and the person of interest.

Writer       : Nano Tresna A.
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : M. Halim
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 6/8/2022 14:48 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.

---