The Petitioner’s legal counsel at the ruling hearing for Decision No. 170/PUU-XXII/2024, Friday (1/3/2025). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the entire material judicial review petition of the provisions regarding the signing of indictments as stipulated in Article 143 paragraph (2) of Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP).

"[The Court] adjudicated, rejects the petition in its entirety,” declared Chief Justice Suhartoyo while delivering the verdict for Decision No. 170/PUU-XXII/2024 at a ruling hearing on Friday, January 3, 2025 in the plenary courtroom.

I Gusti Ngurah Agung Krisna Adi Putra (Petitioner) is a defendant seeking justice at the Negara District Court in Pendem, Negara, Jembrana, Bali. He requested that the Court declare the phrase indictment that shall be dated and signed” in Article 143 paragraph (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code 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.

In its legal considerations, the Court holds that the a quo article is constitutional, rendering the Petitioner’s arguments legally groundless. It emphasized that the article ensures guarantee, protection, fair legal certainty, and equality before the law.

Also read:

Legal Certainty in Indictment Questioned

Petition Questioning Legal Certainty in Indictment Revised

In the legal considerations delivered by Constitutional Justice Arsul Sani, the Court referred to Decision No. 28/PUU-XX/2022. It held that an indictment is a fundamental prerequisite in determining whether an individual can be held accountable for committing a crime and subsequently sentenced to penalties, including imprisonment or deprivation of liberty.

“Therefore, prosecutors shall be careful in drafting the indictment so as not to harm either the defendant or the interests of the state/public they represent,” said Justice Arsul.

He further explained that the provisions in Article 156 paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code outline the legal steps or remedies available to the defendant. These measures can be pursued if the defendant or their legal counsel believes that the indictment is inadmissible or cancelled, specifically in cases where the indictment is deemed not to comply with the requirements set forth in Article 143 paragraph (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

“The defendant may take legal action by filing an objection against the public prosecutor’s indictment if it does not comply with the provisions of the article in question,” stated Justice Arsul.

Regarding the objection raised by the defendant or their legal counsel, Article 156 paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code stipulate that the presiding judge must issue an interlocutory decision after considering the public prosecutor’s response. Furthermore, if the defendant disagrees with the interlocutory decision rendered by the judge, Article 156 paragraph (4) of Law No. 8 of 1981 provides the defendant or their legal counsel with an opportunity to appeal the decision to the competent high court.

Justice Arsul further explained that in addition to filing a legal objection against an interlocutory decision, a defendant or their legal counsel may also raise objections to the public prosecutor’s indictment during the defense stage, following the prosecutor’s criminal charge (requisitoir), as provided in Article 182 paragraph (1) point b of the Criminal Procedure Code. Should these objections remain unresolved during the trial at the first level, the a quo objection materials may be re-submitted during the appellate review process through an appeal memorandum, provided that the high court has not commenced its examination of the case, as stipulated in Article 237 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Justice Arsul added that this indicates that the Criminal Procedure Code regulates the procedural steps and legal remedies available to the defendant or their legal counsel throughout the criminal justice process, from the first instance court to the cassation level.

“Therefore, the Court finds the Petitioner’s argument that Article 143 paragraph (2) on the phrase ‘indictment that shall be dated and signed’ having led to a lack of recognition, guarantee, protection, fair legal certainty, and equal treatment before the law was unfounded and must be declared legally groundless,” Justice Arsul stressed.

Author         : Ashri Fadilla/L. A. P.
Editor          : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR               : Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina
Translator     : Nazila Rikhusshuba/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.

---