The Petitioner’s legal team presenting the petition against the Criminal Procedure Code at the preliminary hearing, Wednesday (12/3/2025). Photo by MKRI/Ilham W.M.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held the preliminary hearing for case No. 231/PUU-XXIII/2025 on the material judicial review of Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) against the 1945 Constitution on Wednesday, December 3, 2025. The petition was filed by Wawan Hermawan, who challenges Article 72 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which states, “At the request of a suspect or his legal adviser, the official concerned shall provide a copy of the report of examination in the interest of his defense.”

At the hearing chaired by Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat, the Petitioner’s counsel M. Ali Fernandes explained that Article 72 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not provide clarity regarding the procedure and deadline for submitting copies of investigation reports (BAP), and is therefore considered in violation of the right to fair legal certainty. This lack of clarity hinders the Petitioner in preparing an optimal defense, including studying the case, preparing witnesses, experts, and other evidence. The Petitioner argued that copies of the investigation reports should be provided from the early stages of the investigation to support defense preparation, not only during the main trial.

The Petitioner also argued that the phrase “the official concerned” in that article is unclear, as it can be interpreted to mean investigators, prosecutors, judges, or even detention officers. This ambiguity creates legal uncertainty and may disadvantage a suspect. In addition, Article 72 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not regulate the deadline for submitting copies of the investigation reports to the suspect or his legal counsel, further hindering the Petitioner’s right to prepare a defense—particularly because the Petitioner faces a severe criminal charge.

“In general, every court decision is always based on the indictment of the public prosecutor. Meanwhile, the indictment is always based on the investigation reports, most of which are summarized in the questions posed to the suspect or witnesses who are later designated as suspects,” the counsel explained.

Therefore, the Petitioner requested the Constitutional Court to declare Article 72 of the Criminal Procedure Code unconstitutional insofar as it is not interpreted to mean that investigators are obligated to provide a copy of the investigation report one day after a written request is submitted, and obligated to provide all copies of the investigation reports in full at the time of case file transfer.

Justices’ Advice

Responding to this petition, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih advised the Petitioner to elaborate more systematically on the five requirements of constitutional impairment, including an explanation of the concrete case he experienced. She emphasized the importance of a clear explanation of how the Petitioner, who has now become a defendant, experienced uncertainty regarding the allegations against him, so that the arguments on constitutional impairment can be more easily understood and assessed by the Court.

The panel gave the Petitioner 14 days to revise the petition, of revisions must be received by the Court by Tuesday, December 16, 2025 at 12:00 WIB.

Explore Case No. 231/PUU-XXIII/2025 (in Indonesian).

Author         : Utami Argawati
Editor          : N. Rosi
PR               : Andhini S.F.
Translators   : 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.

---