The Petitioners confirming his request to withdraw the petition at the preliminary hearing for the judicial review of the Criminal Procedure Code, Tuesday (1/20/2026). Photo by MKRI/Ilham W.M.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court held the preliminary hearing for the material judicial review of Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) filed by Fatur Rizqi Ramadhan, Zain Amruzikin, and Abdul Hadi (Petitioners I-III) on Tuesday, January 20, 2026. The hearing for Case No. 4/PUU-XXIV/2026 was presided over Chief Justice Suhartoyo alongside Constitutional Justices Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh and M. Guntur Hamzah.

At this hearing, however, the Petitioners stated that they had decided to withdraw the petition previously filed with the Constitutional Court. “We experienced a digitalization error and therefore submitted a request for withdrawal and filed a new petition under Case No. 10/PUU-XXVI/2026,” Rizqi explained.

In response to this confirmation, Chief Justice Suhartoyo stated that the matter would be conveyed to the justice deliberation meeting. Thereafter, the Petitioners may await the follow-up, which will be communicated through the court’s Registrar’s Office.

In their petition, the Petitioners challenged several provisions, including Article 17, Article 50, Article 52, Article 54, Article 55, Article 56, Article 72, Article 77, Article 79, Article 80, Article 143 paragraph (4), Article 184 paragraph (1), and Article 189 of the Criminal Procedure Code. They claimed these provisions potentially violate the principle of due process of law, restrict their right to legal assistance at the investigation stage, and weaken judicial oversight mechanisms in the investigation process.

In addition, the Petitioners argued that these provisions do not include a prohibition on the use of confessions obtained through torture, coercion, or inhuman or degrading treatment; impose limitations on access by suspects and legal counsel to case files, particularly at the investigation stage, thereby hindering the Petitioners’ right to mount an effective defense; and even contain a lack of clarity regarding standards for the protection of suspects’ rights as subjects of law.

Accordingly, the Petitioners requested the Court to declare those articles unconstitutional. They also requested the Court to declare these provisions conditionally legally binding insofar as they are not interpreted as “in accordance with the principles of due process of law, a fair trial, the protection of human rights, and a democratic state governed by the rule of law.”

Explore case No. 4/PUU-XXIV/2026 (in Indonesian).

Author       : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : N. Rosi
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.

---