A petition revision hearing of the material judicial review of Law No. 8 of 1981 on Criminal Procedure Code, Monday (5/8/2023). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

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 Monday afternoon, May 8, 2023 in the plenary courtroom. The petition No. 33/PUU-XXI/2023 was filed by two entrepreneurs from Garut Regency, West Java Province, Asep Muhidin and Rahadian Pratama.

The Petitioners who attended the hearing on site conveyed the revisions to the petition. “The [touchstones] of the petition of Article 80 [of the KUHAP] are revised to Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 27 paragraph (1), and Article 28D paragraph (1) [of the 1945 Constitution]. It was initially only Article 28D paragraph (1),” Rahadian explained before the panel chaired by Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul.

He also conveyed the revision to the Petitioners’ legal standing, in which they added explanation of their status as Indonesian citizens.

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

The Petitioners are challenging Article 80 of the KUHAP, which reads, “The request for an examination whether or not the termination of an examination or prosecution is legal can be submitted by the investigator or public prosecutor or a third interested party to the chairman of the court of first instance by mentioning the reason.”

At the preliminary hearing on Monday, April 10, they virtually explained that they had filed a pretrial motion three times, whose conclusions rejected the motion because the Prosecution Office had not conducted any examination in responding to public complaints so the judges deemed the motion premature.

“The Petitioners have been constitutionally harmed due to the absence of legal certainty from the Prosecution Office on public complaints that were not immediately followed up on with a series of examination according to the standard operating procedure (SOP),” Asep said.

He requested that the Prosecution Office of Garut take a legal action in line with its main duty to respond to public complaints. The lack of follow-up and notification to the Petitioners had harmed the Petitioners, who had to ask for information to the High Prosecution Office. 

Author       : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Raisa Ayuditha
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.

---