The Petitioner’s legal counsels at the petition revision hearing for the material judicial review of Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), Friday (12/27/2024). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — A material judicial review hearing of Article 143 paragraph (2) of Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) was held once again by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Friday, December 27, 2024. The petition 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.”

Before Constitutional Justice Asrul Sani and members of the panel, legal counsel Singgih Tomi Gumilang said the petition had been revised. He explained that the Petitioner had elaborated the argument that the phrase “indictment that shall be dated and signed” has led to multiple interpretation and violated the principle of due process of law, thus harming his constitutional rights.

The legal basis had also been adjusted by including Law No. 13 of 2022, Singgih continued. “We missed this point. Next, in the reformulated argument, we emphasize that the phrase ‘indictment that shall be dated and signed’ in Article 143 paragraph (2) of the KUHAP has created legal uncertainty and is against the right to fair legal certainty,” he said.

Based on these arguments, Singgih added, the Petitioner requests that the Court grant the petition in its entirety and declare the phrase “indictment that shall be dated and signed” in the article conditionally unconstitutional and not legally binding if not be interpreted that the indictment that shall be dated and signed is that transferred by the public prosecutor to the panel of judges in the district court and its derivative that is dated and signed and given to the defendant or their legal counsels.

Also read: Legal Certainty in Indictment Questioned

The Petitioner is a defendant being tried at the Negara District Court in Bali for having used cannabis (type I narcotics). He 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. He argues that 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.

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.

---