Chief Justice Anwar Usman delivering a verdict on the judicial review of Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code, Tuesday (10/31/2023). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) declared a judicial review petition of Article 77 paragraph (1) of Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) inadmissible on Tuesday, October 31, 2023. The petition was filed by M. Samosir Pakpahan, an advocate. The ruling hearing took place on Tuesday, October 31, 2023 in the plenary courtroom.

“[The Court] declares the Petitioner’s petition inadmissible,” said Chief Justice Anwar Usman reading the verdict for Decision No. 123/PUU-XXI/2023 alongside the other eight constitutional justices.

In its legal opinion, the Court explained that it had held a preliminary hearing with the agenda of examining the petition revision and the validation of evidence on Monday, October 23, 2023. At the hearing, the Petitioner conveyed the subject matters which had been revised in accordance with the justices’ advice at the previous hearing.

Upon observation, it was confirmed that the Petitioner had changed the object of the petition to Article 77 letter a of the KUHAP. However, the Petitioner did not elaborate the article, which has been interpreted in accordance with the Constitutional Court Decision No. 21/PUU-XII/2014. As a result, Article 77 letter a of the KUHP submitted for review is the original provision prior to Constitutional Court Decision No. 21/PUU-X/2014, which has changed and expanded the interpretation of Article 77 letter a of the KUHP.

In addition, the elaboration of the petition’s background does not correlate Article 77 letter a of the KUHAP with the Constitutional Court Decision No. 21/PUU-X/2014.

The Petitioner had also changed the petitums from four to three. However, in petitum number two, the Petitioner did not request that Article 77 letter a of the KUHAP be declared unconstitutional or conditionally unconstitutional, but for it to apply and be interpreted as regulating a 14-day deadline starting from the issuance of arrest warrant, detention warrant, order of termination of investigation and prosecution, suspect determination, search warrant, seizure warrant, and pretrial motion.

“In addition, the Petitioner did not mention the Constitutional Court Decision No. 21/PUU-XII/2014 when mentioning Article 77 letter a of the KUHAP. Such petitum and mention of the norms, besides not in accordance with the standard for petitum specified in Article 10 of the [Constitutional Court Regulation] No. 2 of 2021, has also caused uncertainty of what the Petitioner's petition actually requested,” Justice Suhartoyo said when reading out the legal considerations.

“Although the Court has the authority to hear the a quo petition, due to the Petitioner’s petition being unclear or obscure, it will not further consider the legal standing and subject matter of the petition,” he explained.

Also read:

Provision on Pretrial Motion Filing Period Challenged

Advocate Revises Petition on Pretrial Motion in KUHAP 

Author       : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : M. Halim
Translator  : Najwa Afifah Lukman/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.

---