The judicial review hearing of Article 143 paragraph (3) of Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code to hear the Relevant Party virtually, Thursday (8/4/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

Thursday, August 4, 2022 | 14:33 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations— An indictment can be declared null and void if it does not include the time and place of the crime committed by the defendant because they are important and influential in determining the court’s absolute and relative jurisdiction, the applicability of Indonesian criminal law, and that the case is not overdue (verjaard) or ne bis in idem. Without the actual time and place of crime, the indictment is definitely null and void.

This statement was made by Andi Hamzah, a criminal law expert for the Attorney General’s Office (Relevant Party) at the judicial review hearing of Article 143 paragraph (3) of Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) on Thursday, August 4, 2022. This eight hearing for case No. 28/PUU-XX/2022 was presided over by Chief Justice Anwar Usman and the other eight constitutional justices.

Also read:

Provision on Indictment in Criminal Procedure Code Challenged

House: Criminal Procedure Code Does Not Regulate Deadline for Prosecutor’s Indictment

Hamzah also said that if the evidence proves that an offense did occur and the defendant was the culprit but the day and date listed is different from the actual incident, the public prosecutor is allowed to file an indictment and can revise the day and date during the trial. He revealed that, based on his experience, the judge never decided an indictment null and void in such a case. The public prosecutor can discuss with the district attorney (DA) first and the judge can annul the indictment again.

“In my opinion, the one at fault was either the prosecutor or the judge. So, [this case] is not under the Constitutional Court’s jurisdiction, but the Supreme Court’. An indictment is an authentic deed just like a notarial deed, so it is written on its top corner ‘pro Justitia’ or ‘for the sake of justice’ as a substitute for stamp duty. The indictment must be as short and clear as possible, and all the words in the indictment must be proven,” he said at the hearing virtually.

Also read:

Govt: Implementation of Provisions on Indictment under Judge’s Purview

Attorney General’s Office Says Indictment Defends Defendant’s Rights

KUHAP Does Not Explain “Legally Invalid” in Provision on Indictment

Umar Husni, Director of PT Karya Jaya Satria, asserted that Article 143 paragraph (3) of Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) was in violation of Article 1 paragraph (3) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. Article 143 paragraph (3) of the KUHAP reads, “An indictment that does not meet the provision as intended in paragraph (2) letter b shall be legally invalid.” In his petition, the Petitioner 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 8/4/2022 15:22 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.

---