Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo chairing the judicial review hearing of Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), Monday (10/31/2022). Photo by MKRI/Panji.
Monday, October 31, 2022 | 10:58 WIB
JAKARTA (MKRI)—The Constitutional Court (MK) held another material judicial review hearing of Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) on Monday, October 31, 2022 in the plenary courtroom. The case No. 96/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by Rudi Hartono Iskandar.
Legal counsel Alamsyah Hanafiah conveyed the revisions to the petition virtually. The Court’s authority, the elaboration on legal standing, and the object of the petition were revised. At first, the Petitioners petitioned Article 7 paragraph (1) letter a, Article 5 paragraph (1) letter a, Article 1 point 24, and Article 109 paragraph (1) of the KUHAP, but now he challenges Article 1 point 24 and Article 7 paragraph (1).
“The material judicial review petition by the Petitioner serves to appeal against abuse of authority by the investigators’, manipulation, and discrimination, which could potentially lead to extortion by investigators, who had issued 11 warrants that took years,” he said before Constitutional Justices Suhartoyo (panel chair), Wahiduddin Adams, and Arief Hidayat.
Also read: Issuance of Multiple Investigation Warrants Questioned
The Petitioner argues that Article 7 paragraph (1) letter a, Article 5 paragraph (1) letter a, Article 1 point 24, and Article 109 paragraph (1) of the KUHAP contradict Article 28 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.
Article 1 point 24 of the KUHAP concerns the investigators’ authority to receive report or complaint on a crime. It reads, “What is meant in this law by: 24. Report is a notification submitted by a person by reason of right or obligation based on law to a competent official that a criminal event has taken or is taking or is presumed to be taking place.”
At the preliminary hearing on Monday, October 17, 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.
Writer : Sri Pujianti
Editor : Nur R.
PR : Muhammad Halim
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 10/31/2022 17:46 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.