Unable to Find Justice for Parent’s Death, Man Challenges Criminal Code
Image

Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo chairing the panel preliminary hearing of the material judicial review of the Criminal Code (KUHP), Monday (9/12/2022). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.


Monday, September 12, 2022 | 14:50 WIB

JAKARTA (MKRI)—The Constitutional Court (MK) held a judicial review hearing of the Criminal Code (KUHP) petitioned by entrepreneur Robiyanto. The hearing for case No. 86/PUU-XX/2022 took place on Monday, September 12, 2022. The Petitioner alleged that Article 78 paragraph (1) point 4 of the Criminal Code (“The right to prosecute shall lapse by lapse of time: in eighteen years for all crimes upon which capital punishment or life imprisonment is imposed.”) unconstitutional.

At the hearing, the Petitioner revealed that his father, Taslim, died on April 14, 2002 after being brutally murdered at the Balai Malam Market, Karimun Village, Tebing Subdistrict, Karimun Regency, Riau Islands Province. He reported it to the Karimun Resort Police. Two people were sentenced to prison for 15 years for the crime, while five others were on the wanted list (DPO). However, the investigation of the two court-ruled suspects was terminated by the National Police on the expiry of the statute of limitation following Article 78 paragraph (1) point (4) of the Criminal Code.

"In 2021, my [father’s] case was [terminated (SP3)]. [I] have given up hope. For the sake of justice, we hope our petition will be granted [by the Constitutional Court],” he said before Constitutional Justices Suhartoyo (panel chair), Wahiduddin Adams, and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh.

Jhon Asron Purba, one of the Petitioner’s legal counsels, said the unfair statute of limitation could lead the perpetrators to be acquitted despite their serious, heinous, and barbaric crime that would warrant death sentence or life imprisonment. Purba added that the a quo article could also potentially harm the Petitioner’s constitutional right to recognition, guarantee, protection, fair legal certainty, and equal treatment before the law because of the statute of limitation for the perpetrators of crimes that warrant death penalty or life imprisonment only expires in 18 years. In addition, the Petitioner could potentially obtain no legal certainty of his father’s death relating to the five suspects that are still at large.

“In fact, the two people who was declared suspects by judges to be processed under criminal law and detained, could not be prosecuted and the investigation was dismissed due to the limitation. So, there is no justice for the Petitioner’s [father’s] death and there is no legal certainty against the perpetrators of the murder,” Purba added.

Based on these reasons, the Petitioner requested in his petitum that the Court grant the petition in its entirety and declare Article 78 paragraph (1) point 4 unconstitutional and conditionally not legally binding as long as it is not interpreted “in more than eighteen years and/or 36 years for all crimes upon which capital punishment or life imprisonment is imposed.”

Justices’ Advice

In response, Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams noted little explanation on the subject matter, which made the petition incomplete according to its standard format as per the Court’s procedural law. He advised the Petitioner to elaborate his concrete case in general, so that it not only would apply to him but to all citizens in the same predicament.

Next, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh advised the Petitioner to observe the Constitutional Court Regulation No. 2 of 2021 on the Procedural Law for Judicial Review Cases, especially Article 10. It mentions things not discussed yet in the petition: the Petitioner’s profile, the Court’s authority, the backgrounds of the petition (posita), the arguments for the formal and material review, and the Petitioner’s losses.

“The posita is crucial because it relates to the arguments, which culminate in what [the Petitioner] requests to the Court. [The current petition] has not reflected the constitutionality issue, but only the implementation issue,” he explained.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo advised the Petitioner to elaborate his legal standing to show the impairment of his constitutional rights and contrast it with the norm petitioned for review. He then announced that the Petitioner had 14 workdays to revise the petition and submit it by Monday, September 26 to the Registrar’s Office.

Writer        : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Andhini S. F.
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 9/13/2022 08:29 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.


Monday, September 12, 2022 | 14:50 WIB 70