Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul reading out the Court’s legal considerations at the ruling hearing for the material judicial review of Law No. 8 of 1981 on Criminal Procedure Code, Thursday (5/25/2023). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — The judicial review hearing of the phrase “the termination of an examination,” which is part of investigation, has been regulated in Article 109 paragraph (2) of the KUHAP. Simply put, there are limitations for investigators that allow them to terminate an examination, i.e. if there is not enough evidence, if the incident that is the object of investigation is not a criminal offense, and if the examination is terminated for the sake of the law. This was one of the Constitutional Court’s (MK) legal considerations in Decision No. 33/PUU-XXI/2023 in the judicial review of Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) as readout by Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul on Thursday, May 25, 2023 at a ruling hearing in the plenary courtroom.
Justice Manahan added that the core of the petition was that the phrase “the termination of an examination” in Article 80 of the KUHAP not giving them fair legal certainty, since they filed pretrial motions due to the absence of follow-ups of a report lodged to the Prosecution Office, if not interpreted as “including termination of an examination if the law enforcement officers do not carry out any examination until over a year since a report is made.”
“Relating to this argument, the Court observed that the General Provisions of the KUHAP stipulate the definition of pretrial in Article 1 number 10, i.e. it is the jurisdiction of the district court to examine and rule on it according to the method stipulated in the legislation. In addition, the Constitutional Court Decision No. 21/PUU-XII/2014 has expanded the pretrial authority, including examining the validity of the determination of suspects, searches, and seizures,” Justice Manahan said from the plenary courtroom.
Unrealized Justice
In accordance with the petitum, Justice Manahan continued, the Petitioners requested the expansion of the limitation of termination of investigation to include termination of an examination if the law enforcement officers do not carry out any examination until over a year since a report is made. Since the Petitioners’ report had not reached the investigation stage, the Court asserted that even if the petition was granted, it would not have any effect on the report.
Meanwhile, if the report had reached the investigation stage, justice that the Petitioners expected would not be realized because the examination was terminated. In addition, the a quo article only regulates the parties that have the right to file pretrial motions whose object is the validity of the termination of examination or prosecution. As such, Article 80 of the KUHAP does not regulate the substance of termination of examination that the Petitioners wished to expand. In addition, the termination of examination in question has been regulated in Article 109 paragraph (2) of the KUHAP.
Not Constitutionality Issue
In order to reveal corruption crimes, sufficient preliminary evidence is required. Therefore, the Anti-Corruption Law mandates that the community aids legal enforcement officers in discovering corruption acts. If the search for preliminary evidence reaches one year but the investigation is terminated, the anti-corruption effort would be in vain. The law enforcement’s obligation toward public reports is regulated in Article 106 of the KUHAP
As such, the legal issue the Petitioners questioned was not an issue of the constitutionality of Article 80 of the KUHAP, especially the phrase “the termination of an examination” because it regulates who has the right to file pretrial motions to examine the validity of the termination of an examination, and this has been ruled by the Constitutional Court in Decision No. 98/PUU-X/2012.
“[The Court] adjudicated, rejects the Petitioners’ petition in its entirety,” said Chief Justice Anwar Usman reading out the verdict.
Also read:
Complaint Disregarded, Provisions on Termination of Investigation Challenged
Petitioners Revise Legal Standing in Case against Termination of Investigation
Two entrepreneurs from Garut Regency, West Java Province, Asep Muhidin and Rahadian Pratama, challenged 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 : Sri Pujianti
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.
Thursday, May 25, 2023 | 17:12 WIB 76