A judicial review hearing of the KUHAP and the KPK Law, Tuesday (2/27/2024), to examine the petition revisions. Photo by MKRI/Ilham W.M.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Another material judicial review hearing of Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) and Law No. 30 of 2002 on the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) as amended by Law No. 19 of 2019 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 30 of 2002 on the KPK was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Tuesday, February 27, 2024 in the plenary courtroom. The petition was filed by prosecutor Jovi Andrea Bachtiar, who challenges Article 1 point 1, Article 1 point 6 letter a, and Article 6 paragraph (1) of the KUHAP as well as Article 45 paragraph (1) of the KPK Law.

The petition revision hearing for case No. 25/PUU-XXII/2024 was presided over by Chief Justice Suhartoyo (panel chair) and Constitutional Justices Ridwan Mansyur and Arsul Sani. Legal counsel Buce Abraham Beruat conveyed that the petition had been revised following the panel justices’ advice. This includes additional explanation of the legal standing.

“In the part on legal standing, two points were added, that is point five on pages five and eight,” he explained.

The background of the petition had also been revised. On point four, the Petitioner mentions the legislatures’ intent on multi-agency in certain criminal offenses. The multi-agency practice in investigations into crimes is a global trend in eradicating crimes, especially extraordinary ones.

Also read: Prosecutor’s Authority in Corruption Investigation Questioned

At the preliminary hearing on Tuesday, February 13, legal counsel Ardi Langga said that according to logical reasoning, normative contradiction in both legal politics and the regulation in the KUHAP and the Prosecution Law will inevitably lead to potential legal uncertainty and even disputes on the prosecutor’s authority to investigate certain crimes, especially corruption crimes.

He emphasized that the Petitioner wishes that the Court clarifies the prosecutor’s authority to investigate certain crimes, especially criminal crimes, in the KUHAP and the KPK Law so that there will be legal certainty in a rechtsstaat pursuant to Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution.

In the petitum, the Petitioner requests that the Court declare Article 1 point 1 of the KUHAP unconstitutional and not legally binding if not interpreted as “The Investigator shall be an official of the Police of the Republic of Indonesia, a prosecutor who is granted a special authority to perform investigation of certain crimes based on statutory laws, a certain civil servant, or other official granted the authority by law to perform investigation.”

The Petitioner also requests that the Court declare Article 1 point 6 letter a of the KUHAP unconstitutional and not legally binding if not interpreted as “The Prosecutor shall be a functional official granted authority by this law to act as public prosecutor and to execute the verdict of a court that has acquired permanent legal force as well as other authority based on statutory laws.”

He also requests that the Court declare Article 6 of the KUHAP unconstitutional and not legally binding if not interpreted as “The Investigator shall be a state police official of the Republic of Indonesia, a prosecutor granted the authority to perform investigation into certain cases by law, a certain civil service official, or other official who is granted special authority by law to perform investigation.”

In addition, he also requests that the Court declare Article 45 paragraph (1) of the KPK Law unconstitutional and not legally binding if not interpreted as “The Investigator shall be an Investigator of the Corruption Eradication Commission appointed and dismissed by the Corruption Eradication Commission, a police official of the Republic of Indonesia, or a prosecutor.”

Author       : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Fauzan 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.

---