The Petitioner’s legal counsel Nathan Christy Noah conveying the petition revisions virtually at a material judicial review hearing of Article 340 of the Criminal Code, Monday (7/1/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The material judicial review of Article 340 of the Criminal Code (KUHP) continued in the Constitutional Court (MK) on Monday, July 1, 2024 in the plenary courtroom. The case No. 36/PUU-XXII/2024 was filed by Moh. Qusyairi, an advocate.

The petition revision hearing was presided over by Chief Justice Suhartoyo and Constitutional Justices M. Guntur Hamzah and Ridwan Mansyur. The Petitioner’s legal counsel Nathan Christy Noah stated that the touchstones on page six, i.e. Articles 28A, 28D paragraph (1), and 28I paragraph (1), had been revised.

“The emphasis is on the theory of will, Your Honors,” he said.

He also explained the theory of will relating to deliberate action. “We have also added an emphasis on ‘why motive must be regulated as to not cast any doubt and multiple interpretations” on page 27,” he said.

Also read: Motive of Premeditated Murder Questioned Again

The Petitioner questions motive in the Article 340 of the Criminal Code (KUHP). It 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.”

“Evidence related to motive in premeditated murder is necessary and can be used as a reference because it can be used as clue when the existing evidence raises various speculations that make judges hesitate in sentencing,” said legal counsel Annee William Siadari at the preliminary hearing on Wednesday, March 13, 2024.

The Petitioner asserts that premeditated murder, which is regulated by Article 340 of the Criminal Code, involves the elements “any person,” “deliberate,” “with premeditation,” and “takes the life of another person.” The element that is not mentioned in Article 338 is “with premeditation.” Premeditated murder involves motive, which is different from intent. Intent determines whether the defendant did the crime deliberately, while motive concerns why they did it.

The Petitioner believes that there is no clear and comprehensive definition of motive in murder, while its proof in premeditated murder is crucial for the judges’ consideration in handing down a ruling to ensure the defendant is punished fairly.

The enforcement of the norm allows a case where defendants of premeditated murders receive the same sentence for different motives. It also allows the proving of motive by the prosecutor be optional and could confuse the defendant’s attorney and hinder effective defense. The norm has resulted in the Petitioner having difficulty defending clients who were charged with premeditated murder and to ensure their right to fair treatment before the law.

Based on that reason, 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.”

Also read:

Advocate Requests Motive Be Considered for Criminal Sentence

Advocate Revises Petition on Motive in Criminal Code

Court Affirms Retraction of Petition on Motive in Criminal Code

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

---