Singgih Tomi Gumilang and legal team conveying the Petitioner’s argument on the material material judicial review of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), Thursday (12/12/2024). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held the preliminary hearing for the material judicial review of Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) on Thursday, December 12, 2024. The case No. 170/PUU-XXII/2024 was filed by I  Gusti  Ngurah  Agung Krisna  Adi  Putra, who felt his constitutional rights/authority have been harmed by the enforcement of the phrase “indictment that shall be dated and signed” in Article 143 paragraph (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Before Constitutional Justice Asrul Sani and the other members of the panel, legal counsel Singgih Tomi Gumilang explained that the Petitioner is a defendant being tried at the Negara District Court in Bali for having used cannabis (type I narcotics).

The Petitioner believes that the lack of date and signature in the lawsuit can prevent him from understanding the charge brought against him, which would lead to the lack of guarantee of his right to fair legal protection under Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

Singgih said the article does not explicitly mention the parties who receive the “indictment that shall be dated and signed,” thus it does not provide legal certainty.

“The phrase does not explicitly require that the date and signature on the indictment refer to the public prosecutor’s approval when handing the letter to the panel of judges, or the defendant, or their legal counsel? This has led to multiple interpretations, thus violating the principle lex certa,” he said.

He argued that the phrase must be interpreted that the indictment shall be given by the public prosecutor to the panel of judges and to the defendant or their legal counsel.

This interpretation ensures that the Petitioner understand the indictment clearly and has the opportunity to prepare a defense sufficiently, as guaranteed under the 1945 Constitution. Singgih explained that interpreting the article as conditionally constitutional means that it applies with adjustment, so as not to harm the Petitioner’s constitutional rights.

Justices’ Advice

In response, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih advised the Petitioner to revise the petition by correcting typos and adjusting it to follow the Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 2 of 2021.

“There must be clear explanation of the Court’s authority, legal standing, and petitum. Please revise the legal standing in the back. First, explain the Court’s authority,” she explained.

The panel gave the Petitioner 14 days to revise the petition and he is to submit the revised petition no later than Friday, December 27.

Author            : Utami Argawati
Editor            : Lulu Anjarsari P.
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.

---