A material judicial review hearing of Law No. 1 of 1946 on the Criminal Code (KUHP), Tuesday (10/22/2022). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
Tuesday, November 22, 2022 | 15:43 WIB
JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held another judicial review hearing of Law No. 1 of 1946 on the Criminal Code (KUHP) for case No. 86/PUU-XX/2022 on Tuesday, November 22, 2022 in the plenary courtroom, presided over by Chief Justice Anwar Usman and the other eight constitutional justices.
The fifth hearing was supposed to present the statement of the Petitioner’s expert, Suhandi Cahaya. However, the Registrar’s Office had reported that his statement had only been submitted the day before, thus could not be presented at the hearing as Article 10 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Regulation No. 1 of 2021 on Remote Hearing stipulates that the expert’s statement be submitted no later than 2 workdays before the hearing.
“In order to hear the Petitioner’s expert’s statement, [the hearing] is delayed until Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 11:00 WIB under the condition that the remainder, the expert’s curriculum vitae and consent be [submitted] beforehand,” said the chief justice.
At the hearing, the Petitioner’s legal counsel Jhon Asron Purba apologized for the delay in submitting the expert’s statement and CV. “Apologies, Your Honors, for the delay [and] the letter of assignment from Jayabaya University and the expert’s CV. We would still like to present our expert at the next hearing,” he said virtually.
The Petitioner, Robiyanto, an entrepreneur, 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 : Utami Argawati
Editor : Nur R.
PR : Andhini S. F.
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 10/23/2022 09:32 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.