Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo read out the Court’s legal considerations at the ruling hearing for the material judicial review of Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), Tuesday (12/20/2022). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
Tuesday, December 20, 2022 | 19:38 WIB
JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the entire material judicial review petition of Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP). The ruling hearing for Decision No. 96/PUU-XX/2022 took place on Tuesday, December 20, 2022. The Court’s legal considerations was read out by Constitutional Justices M. Guntur Hamzah and Suhartoyo.
Justice Suhartoyo stated that the Petitioner’s main issue faced by the Petitioner, who challenged Article 1 point 24 and Article 7 paragraph (1) of the KUHAP, was the duration of investigation since his case was determined to have had the elements of a crime until his being declared a suspect. Therefore, the Petitioner felt that there was no guarantee of fair legal protection and certainty, seeing his uncertain fate for five years.
No Constitutional Issue
Justice Suhartoyo added that the issue was not a matter of the constitutionality of Article 7 paragraph (1) letter a of the KUHAP, but rather an issue of implementation in examining a criminal case. As long as the examination of a case is based on a report, which later develops into several cases involving many parties and are related to other crimes that have different qualifications, the examination likely takes a long time and be more than one case. As a result, a separate investigation into the new crime(s) is also necessary. In order to provide guarantee, legal protection, and good government administration, a new investigation is necessary to accommodate all administrative matters for investigators to exercise their authority.
Even though pretrial is available for the investigative process based on Article 77 letter a of the KUHAP, based on the Constitutional Court Decision No. 21/PUU-XII/2014 and without intending to assess the concrete cases the Petitioner experienced, Justice Suhartoyo said, that the Court emphasized that through this decision, law enforcement officials (investigators) should not to abuse their authority and the investigation process should be carried out proportionally and professionally so that the criminal law process is carried out with great care and violations of human rights can be avoided, both for the reporter, the reported, and for public interest.
“Based on the abovementioned legal considerations, the Court believes the Petitioner’s request of the interpretation of Article 7 paragraph (1) letter a of the KUHAP to become ‘An investigator as intended in article 6 paragraph (1) letter a, because of his duties, has the authority: a. to accept a report or complaint from a person about the presence of a criminal act along with 1 (one) investigation warrant’ is legally groundless,” Justice Suhartoyo at the ruling hearing presided by Chief Justice Anwar Usman and the other eight constitutional justices.
He added that Article 1 point 24 and Article 7 paragraph (1) letter a of the KUHAP have provided equal status in law and government and provided guarantee, protection, and fair legal certainty. Thus, these norms do not conflict with Article 27 paragraph (1) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. Thus, the Petitioner’s argument was legally groundless and based on all of the aforementioned legal considerations, the Court is of the opinion that the petition was legally groundless in its entirety. “[The Court] adjudicated, rejects the Petitioner’s petition in its entirety,” said Chief Justice Anwar Usman reading out the verdict.
Issuance of Multiple Investigation Warrants Questioned
Petitioner Revises Object of Petition against Criminal Procedure Code
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 KUHAP contradicted 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 believed the a quo article did not regulate investigation warrant, meaning the police could act arbitrarily and at will, which might 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 had been seven years and it seemed that the case was 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 12/21/2022 15:08 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.