The Petitioners’ counsel Zico Leonard Djagardo Simanjuntak presenting revisions to the petition at a judicial review hearing of the Criminal Procedure Code remotely, Friday (2/6/2026). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court held the petition revision hearing for the judicial review of Article 16, Article 19 paragraph (1), Article 22 paragraph (1), and Article 23 paragraph (5) of Law No. 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) on Friday, February 6, 2026 in one of the Court’s panel courtrooms.

On behalf of the Petitioners, counsel Zico Leonard Djagardo Simanjuntak stated that they would like to add another petitioner by the name of Leon Maulana Riza Pasha.

“We have a few significant revisions. We would like to direct Your Honors’ attention to exhibit P-12 to update on the case. This is a case where an employee was reported by their supervisor for doing the supervisor’s order. If you remember, on Monday February 2, the Court decided on the material judicial review of [Article] 488 of the Criminal Code (KUHP). We were not updated on that. We only received an update on Sunday. So, we would like to update exhibit P-12, where we are using the new Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) and the new Criminal Code (KUHP),” Simanjuntak said when presenting the revisions to petition No. 2/PUU-XXIV/2026 before the panel chaired by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra.

In the revised petitums, the Petitioners request that the Court declare Article 16 of the Criminal Procedure Code conditionally unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as it is not interpreted to mean “... (3) In the event that, at the stage of preliminary inquiry, where there is a reported person, the investigator shall first conduct a clarification of the reported person before elevating the case to the investigation stage.” They also request that the Court declare Article 19 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code conditionally unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as it is not interpreted to mean “parties with a direct interest—the reporting party and the reported party—shall be notified of and involved in the conduct of the case presentation.

Also read: Equality of Reporting-Reported Parties under Criminal Procedure Code Questioned

Two citizens, Lina and Sandra Paramita (Petitioners I and II, respectively), have filed a petition for judicial review of Article 16, Article 19 paragraph (1), Article 22 paragraph (1), and Article 23 paragraph (5) of Law No. 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) to the Constitutional Court. They believe those provisions are contrary to the principle of equality before the law as guaranteed by Article 27 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. That constitutional provision affirms that all citizens are equal before the law and government, without exception.

They asserted that those articles grant rights and protection only to the reporting party by obliging the Investigator or Inquirer to issue a receipt for the report or complaint to the reporting party, without providing an equivalent guarantee of rights to the reported party to be informed, to be heard, or to defend themselves at the same stage. As a result, the reported party is placed in a highly disadvantageous position because they do not have access to the same information as the reporting party.

Explore case No. 2/PUU-XXIV/2026 (in Indonesian).

Author       : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Fauzan Febriyan
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.

---