Abolition of Prosecution of Expired Cases Protects Perpetrators and Victims
Image

A material judicial review hearing of Law No. 1 of 1946 on the Criminal Code (KUHP), Monday (11/14/2022), to hear the president and the Relevant Party. Photo by MKRI/Ilham W. M.


Monday, November 14, 2022 | 14:44 WIB

JAKARTA (MKRI)—The abolition of prosecution of cases whose statutes of limitation have expired in Law No. 1 of 1946 on the Criminal Code (KUHP) constitutes protection for the perpetrators and the victims, said Deputy Attorney General for Civil and State Administrative Court Affairs Feri Wibisono on behalf of the President at a judicial review on Monday, November 14, 2022. The fourth hearing for case No. 86/PUU-XX/2022 was chaired by Chief Justice Anwar Usman.

He asserted that the statute of limitation serves to ensure the legal certainty of the resolution of a case. The Attorney General’s Office believes the Petitioner did not have constitutional impairment due to Article 78 paragraph (1) point 4 of the Criminal Code. In addition, the longer a case goes on, the memory of the ones involved in it becomes more unreliable, and the harder it will be to uncover and collect evidence and find witnesses.

The Attorney General’s Office also asserted that the damage or loss of evidence and the reduction of a witness’ memory of an incident would jeopardize a prosecution. In addition, the statute of limitation of a criminal case is also affected by the punishment for the crime, as regulated in the Criminal Code. With that argument, the President asserted that the Petitioner’s argument was legally groundless.

Therefore, Feri said, for the defendant of a crime, who would feel guilt and remorse over their crime, the statute of limitation of prosecution is necessary.

Also read: Unable to Find Justice for Parent’s Death, Man Challenges Criminal Code

Next, vice chairman of the Witness and Victim Protection Agency (LPSK) Edwin Partogi Pasaribu explained that the Petitioner’s case had occurred long before the LPSK was established, where restitution for victims’ families had not been regulated.

There are only several laws that regulate restitution, he said. They are the Anti-Terrorism Law, the Anti-Trafficking Law, the Child Protection Law, and the Law on Sexual Violence Crimes. In addition, the Supreme Court also has a regulation on the application for restitution and compensation.

Pasaribu asserted the Witness and Victim Protection Law also regulates compensation and restitution, where the LPSK is authorized to determine the victims’ losses. There is also grace period for the implementation of restitution from the perpetrator to the victim.

Also read:

Petitioner of Criminal Code Strengthens Argument of Constitutional Impairment

House Reveals Change of Statute of Limitation in Criminal Code

The Petitioner challenges Article 78 paragraph (1) point 4 of the Criminal Code. 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.

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.

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.”

Writer        : Ilham W. M.
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Andhini S. F.
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 11/15/2022 09:22 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.


Monday, November 14, 2022 | 14:44 WIB 43