Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra reading out the ruling on the judicial review of Law No. 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), Monday (3/16/2026). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court declared Petition No. 54/PUU-XXIV/2026 inadmissible in the judicial review of Article 5 paragraph (1) letters b and e and Article 79 paragraph (8) letter a of Law No. 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP). The Petitioners—including two individuals named suspects following the May Day protest on May 1, 2025—were found to lack legal standing to challenge the new KUHAP.

“There is no doubt for the Court to conclude that the Petitioners do not have the legal standing to file the a quo petitions,” said Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra while delivering the Court’s legal considerations for Decision No. 54/PUU-XXIV/2026 on Monday, March 16, 2026, in the plenary courtroom.

The Court explained that the criminal investigation against Petitioner I and Petitioner II had commenced prior to the enactment of Law No. 20 of 2025. As such, the investigation was conducted under Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code (the previous KUHAP). Based on the evidence presented, any alleged impairment of their constitutional rights due to the challenged provisions would only arise if the investigation had been conducted under the new KUHAP.

“Therefore, the alleged constitutional impairment described by Petitioner I and Petitioner II has no causal link to the provisions being reviewed,” Saldi stated.

The Court further noted that although Petitioner III had attended advocate professional training and worked at a law firm, there was no evidence that she had passed the advocate professional examination or handled cases that resulted in constitutional harm due to the enforcement of the challenged norms. Meanwhile, Petitioners IV through XIII only submitted evidence in the form of student identification cards, writings on the KUHAP draft, and records of university activities. They also failed to explain any constitutional impairment that has a causal relationship with the a quo provisions.

Also read:

May Day Suspects Challenge New Criminal Procedure Code
May Day Suspects Revise Petition on New Criminal Procedure Code

Petitioner I, Cho Yong Gi, is a student of the Faculty of Humanities, Philosophy Program, at the University of Indonesia. Petitioner II, Jorgiana Augustine, is a graduate student at the Faculty of Law, Gadjah Mada University. Their designation as suspects placed them under the state’s coercive authority, exposing them to possible detention, case transfer, and prosecution, thereby affecting their personal liberty, sense of security, and legal certainty.

With the investigation still ongoing and the possibility of prosecution remaining open, both Petitioners argued that they would be subject to the provisions of the new KUHAP in subsequent stages, including investigation, detention, prosecution, evidentiary proceedings, and trial. They identified themselves as activists advocating civil liberties and promoting human rights through discussions, writings, and media engagement.

During the May Day protest, both served as paramedics. However, they claimed to have been subjected to torture, searches, forced seizure, harassment, beatings, mob violence, and other forms of abuse, allegedly for disobeying orders from authorities. They were named suspects on May 23, 2025 under Article 216 in conjunction with Article 218 of the Criminal Code (Law No. 1 of 1946).

Other Petitioners include Hafizhah Nur Oktawiyana (Petitioner III), Muhammad Shiddiq (Petitioner IV), Rangga Putra Valeriant (Petitioner V), Dyzta Mutiara Salim (Petitioner VI), Muhammad Nouval Ar-Rahman (Petitioner VII), Satria Dzaky Suhendar (Petitioner VIII), Noval Ferdiansyah (Petitioner IX), Julianus (Petitioner X), Ahmad Zabidi Hikam (Petitioner XI), and Mathias Eikel Bremana Sembiring (Petitioner XII).

Explore the Case: Petition No. 54/PUU-XXIV/2026 (in Bahasa Indonesia)

Author: Mimi Kartika
Editor: N. Rosi
Translator: Yuanna Sisilia

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.

Complete Decision: Decion No. 54/PUU-XXIV/2026 (in Bahasa Indonesia)

 

---