A ruling hearing of judicial review of Law No. 1 of 1946 on the Criminal Code, Wednesday (3/20/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected a material judicial review petition filed by Mohammad Riyadi Setyarto, an entrepreneur on Law No. 1 of 1946 on the Criminal Code (KUHP). The ruling hearing for Decision No. 20/PUU-XXII/2024 took place on Wednesday, March 20, 2024 in the plenary courtroom.
“[The Court] rejects the Petitioner’s petition in its entirety,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo alongside the other eight constitutional justices.
Delivering the Court’s legal considerations, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh said lapse of time can basically be changed at any time following the needs and sense of justice in society, as long as it does not exceed authority and contradict the principles contained in the 1945 Constitution. However, because the lapse of time of criminal prosecution is also attached to constitutional rights, which are fundamental rights of victims and/or families of victims of criminal offenders who must also be given legal protection for the losses they experience, in determining the lapse, if changes are to be made, they must also consider the rights and interests of these victims.
According to the Court, when considering the unconstitutionality of Article 79 of the Criminal Code, it cannot be separated from other articles that also regulate the termination of the authority to prosecute and execute punishment as regulated in Chapter VIII of the Criminal Code. Therefore, regardless of the concrete case the Petitioner has experienced, there would be legal uncertainty and injustice if the article was declared conditionally unconstitutional, as the Petitioner desired.
Furthermore, Justice Foekh continued, in addition to resulting in legal uncertainty and injustice, the absence of lapse of time of prosecution of criminal offenses would also complicate the handling of cases, because a lengthy period of time had passed between the time the criminal offenses was committed and the prosecution. Without a lapse of time and in a long period of time, it is very likely that the law enforcement officials (investigators) have been replaced. This would impact the review and assessment of the results of the inquiry and investigation of the case, where a new investigator must start from scratch and use evidence that may no longer be valid. Moreover, in that period, evidence of the criminal offense could have been damaged; the witnesses might have forgotten the events they saw, experienced, and felt due to age or other health problems; or the witnesses might have died.
“The important thing that must be emphasized by the Court in relation to the constitutionality of a quo article is that such restrictions are solely to ensure legal certainty and respect for the rights and freedoms of others. In addition, the Court disagrees with the Petitioner’s argument on the connection between the limitation of the lapse of time and the potential violation of human rights. The Court is of the opinion that recognition and protection of human rights are not absolute but certain restrictions can be justified as long as they are in line with what has been regulated in Article 28J paragraph (2), which determines that in exercising their rights and freedoms, every person shall be subject to the restrictions prescribed by law solely to ensure recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and to meet just demands in accordance with moral considerations, religious values, security, and public order in a democratic society,” Justice Foekh explained.
Based on the aforementioned legal considerations, the Court holds that there is no constitutionality issue in Article 79 of the Criminal Code along the phrase “The lapse of time commences on the next day after the day on which that act has been committed, except in the following cases.”
“Based on the entire elaboration of the legal considerations above, it is evident that the provision of the norm of Article 79 of the Criminal Code does not lead to issues related to the right to life and survival and the right to protection of oneself and one’s family from the threat of fear as guaranteed in Article 28A and Article 28G paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, not as argued by the Petitioner. Therefore, the Petitioner’s arguments are unreasonable according to the law,” Justice Foekh emphasized.
Also read:
Term of Lapse of Time in Criminal Code Challenged
Petitioner Revises Petition on Statute of Limitation of Crimes
Mohammad Riyadi Setyarto, an entrepreneur, challenged 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 preliminary hearing on Tuesday, February 20, 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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 20, 2024 | 17:41 WIB 130