Court officer assisting Petitioner Mohammad Riyadi Setyarto before the preliminary hearing for the judicial review of the Criminal Code, Tuesday (2/20/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ilham W.M.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held a preliminary hearing for the material judicial review of Law No. 1 of 1946 on the Criminal Code (KUHP) on Tuesday, February 20, 2024. The case No. 20/PUU-XXII/2024 was filed by Mohammad Riyadi Setyarto, an entrepreneur. He challenges Article 79 of the Criminal Code, which reads, “The term of lapse of time commences on the next day after the day on which that act has been committed, except in the following cases.”

At the on-site hearing chaired by Constitutional Justice Ridwan Mansyur, the Petitioner, who was present without legal counsel, said that his deceased father ADm’s valuable documents had been stolen by Dd Sghrt and Hndr Spry in February 1999. His father was ill at that time, thus was not aware of the theft.

“[I] heard a confession by Dd Sghrt in 2018, who attested that in February 1999 he had stolen [valuables] when late A Dm was ill and this led to his death. He had also committed several cases of burglary along with Hndr Spry, who is now deceased. The confession matched several facts that [I] had experienced but [I] was aware of the burglary only after Dd Sghrt’s confession to [me]. Dd Sghrt typically wears clothing as an Arabic ustadh would, while Hdr Spry rs clothing as a Javanese ustadh would. They often carry Arabic prayer books, bottles containing water, an an object wrapped in newspaper—later discovered to be a machete,” the Petitioner explained.

He revealed that the stolen documents are financial documents worth millions of pounds. The crime was discovered after an oversea bank informed him that the documents had been cashed out gradually by other parties since 2002. He then reported it to the police of Madiun Regency around 2019-2020 but it was rejected because the crime had occurred in 1999, while the Criminal Code regulates a statute of limitation for the crime.

The Petitioner explained that in order to obtain protection and fair legal certainty guaranteed by Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution as well as protection on his person, property as well as a sense of safety and protection against the threat of fear as guaranteed by Article 28G paragraph (1), Article 79 of the Criminal Code must be amended to “The term of lapse of time commences on the next day after the day on which that act has been committed or been discovered by the victim or any aggrieved party, except in the following cases.” He said that if the petition is granted, it will be a basis for the law enforcement to inquire, investigate, and charge the perpetrators of theft and other crimes with a fairer statute of limitation to the victim or any aggrieved party so that their rights can be guaranteed.

Based on those arguments, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare the a quo article unconstitutional and not legally binding if not interpreted as “The term of lapse of time commences on the next day after the day on which that act has been committed or been discovered by the victim or any aggrieved party.”

Justices Advice

In response, Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah said the Petitioner should study the Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) to revise the petition.

“Drafting a petition is not enough by observing past petitions, but also the legal basis for it, which is now PMK No. 2 of 2021. Please read it and with it while also reviewing past petitions available on the Court’s website,” he said.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh advised, “Make a subject for the petition. Aside from that, please change ‘Petitioners’ to ‘Petitioner.’”

The justice panel gave the Petitioner 14 days to revise the petition. He is to submit it to the Registrar’s Office by Monday, March 4 at 09:00 WIB.

Author       : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Andhini S.F.
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.

---