The Petitioner’s counsel at the panel petition revision hearing of the judicial review hearing of Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code, Tuesday (4/11/2023). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The judicial review hearing of Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) continued in the Constitutional Court (MK) on Tuesday, April 11, 2023 in the plenary courtroom. Advocate M. Yasir Djamaludin filed the petition No. 27/PUU-XXI/2023 to challenge Article 82 paragraph (1) letter d of the KUHAP.

Before the panel chaired by Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul, legal counsel Imelda said that the petition had been revised following the justices’ advice. “First, the material judicial review of Article 82 paragraph (1) letter d of the KUHAP as interpreted by the Constitutional Court in Decisions No. 78/PUU-XI/2013, No. 41/PUU-XIII/2015, No. 102/PUU-XIII/2015, and No. 66/PUU-XVI/2018 on Article 28D paragraph (1) and Article 28I paragraph (5) of the 1945 Constitution,” she said.

In explaining the Court’s authority, Imelda said, the title had been simplified and the petition had included several pieces of legislation as well as the Constitutional Court regulation (PMK) on pages 2, 3, and 4.

“Next, the Petitioner’s legal standing, which Your Honors asked for the constitutional impairment to be emphasized. The petition by the Petitioner aims at fighting for his rights as an advocate to enforce legal supremacy especially for providing legal assistance to every person or client who seeks legal justice and legal expediency because their constitutional rights are harmed due to multiple interpretations of 82 paragraph (1) letter d of the KUHAP,” she explained.

Also read: Complaint Disregarded, Provisions on Termination of Investigation Challenged

At the preliminary hearing, the Petitioner explained that he had performed his professional responsibilities by providing legal assistance, for instance, in a pretrial motion No. 1/Pid.Pra/2023/PN.Jap dated February 24, 2023 in the District Court of Jayapura, which had been declared null and void since it had been transferred to the District Court of Jayapura as the criminal cases No. 2/Pid.Sus-TPK/2023/PN.Jap and No. 3/Pid.SusTPK/2023/PN.Jap, both dated March 1, 2023.

However, the Petitioner suffered constitutional impairment since the pretrial motion was not processed by the District Court of Jayapura. There has been no examination and decision of the pretrial case. Instead, it was declared null and void since the dossier has been transferred and the case has been investigated by the District Court of Jayapura.

The Petitioner asserted that Article 82 paragraph (1) letter d of the KUHAP had led to legal uncertainty for the advocate in performing their profession due to the lack of emphasis on the interpretation of the phrase “the motion is null and void.” Therefore, pretrial motions were not examined while the dossier has been transferred and the case examined by the district court. Thus, the motion was declared null and void.

Therefore, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare Article 82 paragraph (1) letter d along the phrase “the motion shall be dropped” in Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code of the 1945 Constitution and not legally binding if not interpreted as ‘the pretrial motion shall continue until the issuance of a decision by delaying examination of the subject matter.’

Author       : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Fitri Yuliana
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

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.

---