Advocate Revises Petition on Motive in Criminal Code
Image

Chief Justice Suhartoyo with Constitutional Justices Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh and M. Guntur Hamzah presiding over a material judicial review of Article 340 of the Criminal Code (KUHP), Tuesday (1/30/2024). Photo by MKRI/Panji.


JAKARTA (MKRI) — The material judicial review of Article 340 of the Criminal Code (KUHP) continued on Tuesday, January 30, 2024 in the Constitutional Court’s (MK) plenary courtroom and online. The session was to hear revisions to petition No. 1/PUU-XXII/2024, with Chief Justice Suhartoyo and Constitutional Justices Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh and M. Guntur Hamzah presiding.

Legal counsel Deddy Rizaldi Arwin Gommo revealed that the Petitioner had not included the philosophical perspectives and law journals of other countries for comparison, as the justices advised at the preliminary hearing.

“Upon observance, we had not had optimum results. The mention of the article in the Law, referencing Constitutional Court decisions, have also been revised,” he added.

He also said that the Petitioner had added the state gazette into the petitum. “A change of postal code was also made in this revised petition,” he explained.

Also read: Advocate Requests Motive Be Considered for Criminal Sentence

Abdul Hakim, an advocate, challenges the word “motive” in Article 340 of the Criminal Code (KUHP), which reads, “Any person who with deliberate intent and with premeditation takes the life of another person, shall, being guilty of murder, be punished by capital punishment of life imprisonment or a maximum imprisonment of twenty years.”

At the preliminary hearing for case No. 1/PUU-XXII/2024 on Wednesday, January 17, legal counsel Nathan Christy Noah explained that as an advocate, the Petitioner often provides legal assistance in manslaughter or murder. “In the legal assistance process, the Petitioner feels there is no clear, complete, and comprehensive interpretation of the determination of ‘motive’ in murder as included in Article 340 of the KUHP,” he said.

The Petitioner stresses that motive is an important aspect in court ruling. This means that it can affect the severity of the sentence. He also argues that it would be unfair that a manslaughter done in self-defense is given the same sentence as a murder done for revenge on the ground that they are the same offense, despite the difference motives.

In the petitum, the Petitioner requests that the Court declare Article 340 of the Criminal Code unconstitutional and not legally binding if not interpreted as “Any person who with deliberate intent and with premeditation takes the life of another person, shall, being guilty of murder, be punished by capital punishment of life imprisonment or a maximum imprisonment of twenty years.” 

Author       : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Nur R.
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.


Tuesday, January 30, 2024 | 16:07 WIB 59