Issuance of Multiple Investigation Warrants Questioned

The preliminary hearing of the judicial review of the Criminal Procedure Code, Monday (10/17/2022). Photo by MKRI/Ilham W. M.

Monday, October 17, 2022 | 16:31 WIB

JAKARTA (MKRI)—The Constitutional Court (MK) held a preliminary hearing for the material judicial review of Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) on Monday, October 17, 2022 in the plenary courtroom. The case No. 96/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by Rudi Hartono Iskandar, who argued that Article 7 paragraph (1) letter a, Article 5 paragraph (1) letter a, Article 1 point 24, and Article 109 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code contradict Article 28 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

Legal counsel Alamsyah Hanafiah revealed virtually that the Petitioner received 11 investigation warrants for one case and object referred to in the Police Report No. LP/656/VI/2016/BARESKRIM dated June 27, 2016. On January 17, 2022, the Petitioner was named a suspect in an alleged corruption case of land acquisition for the construction of flats. He then filed a pretrial motion to the West Jakarta District Court to request cancelation of the Petitioner’s identification as suspect.

In short, the identification as suspect was declared invalid and not legally binding. As a result of the letter, the Petitioner was examined by investigators for up to seven years. The Petitioner believes the a quo article does not regulate investigation warrant, meaning the police can act arbitrarily and at will, which may have infringed on the Petitioner’s rights.

“In addition, the Petitioner filed this petition so that no abuse of authority, manipulation, and discrimination against a suspected criminal case, which could potentially lead to extortion by investigators, would not happen again, that investigators would not do these things. It has been seven years and it seems that the case is on a limbo and the investigation warrant did not stop,” he said before Constitutional Justices Suhartoyo (panel chair), Wahiduddin Adams, and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh.

Justices’ Advice

Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams advised the Petitioner to explain the Court’s authority following the Constitutional Court Law, the Lawmaking Law, and the latest Constitutional Court Regulation; to quote the norms to review in full as well as parts of the Constitution that guarantee the Petitioner’s constitutional rights so as to show the contradiction between the norm petitioned and the Constitution. He also requested that the Petitioner observe other Court rulings relating to the article petitioned in the case, such as Decision No. 4/PUU-XX/2022, to support the Petitioner’s argument.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh advised the Petitioner to clearly explain his constitutional impairment related to the norms petitioned. Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo advised to consider whether the issuance of multiple investigation warrants was an issue of constitutionality or implementation.

At the end of the session, Justice Suhartoyo informed the Petitioner that the Court gave him 14 workdays to revise the petition and to submit it no later than Monday, October 31 at 09:00 WIB to the Registrar’s Office. 

Writer        : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Muhammad Halim
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 10/19/2022 14:26 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, October 17, 2022 | 16:31 WIB 225