One of the petitioners, Syamsul Jaiddin, appearing virtually, announced the withdrawal of a judicial review petition of Law No. 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), Wednesday (22/04). Photo: MKRI Public Relations/Panji.

---

JAKARTA, MKRI – The Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi/MK) on Wednesday (22 April 2026) resumed hearings in a judicial review of several provisions of Law No. 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP). However, the case took an unexpected turn as the petitioners moved to withdraw their application.

The petition, registered as Case No. 119/PUU-XXIV/2026 and filed by Henoch Thomas along with ten advocates, challenges Article 1 point 22, Article 31, Article 31 paragraphs (1) and (2), and Article 151 paragraph (2) letter b of the KUHAP.

Originally scheduled as a hearing to examine revisions to the petition, the session instead heard a statement from petitioner Syamsul Jaiddin, who confirmed the withdrawal.

“We are withdrawing this petition for now and will further elaborate it. As for the formal withdrawal letter, we are still completing the required signatures from all petitioners and will submit it to the Court thereafter,” Syamsul said during the virtual hearing.

Responding to the statement, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih, accompanied by Justices Ridwan Mansyur and Arsul Sani, instructed the petitioners to promptly submit a formal written notice of withdrawal. “A written submission is required immediately regarding the withdrawal,” Enny emphasized.

Also read:
Questioning Advocates Expanded Definition Without Clear Qualification Standards

The case centers on provisions regulating the definition and role of advocates in criminal proceedings. Article 1 point 22 of the KUHAP defines an advocate not only as a legal professional meeting statutory requirements under the Advocates Law, but also includes individuals providing legal services as part of community service or legal aid.

Other challenged provisions govern the right of suspects to legal assistance, the presence of advocates during investigations, the ability to object to coercive questioning, and administrative requirements such as proof of oath-taking or membership in a legal aid institution.

In the preliminary hearing held on April 9, 2026, the petitioners argued that these provisions contradict Articles 27(1), 28D(1), and 28D(2) of the 1945 Constitution. They claimed that the expanded definition of “advocate” undermines legal certainty and conflicts with Law No. 18 of 2003 on Advocates.

According to the petitioners, the contested norms dilute the legal status of duly appointed and sworn advocates, create unequal treatment between advocates and non-advocates, and potentially restrict independent legal practitioners from representing clients in criminal litigation.

 

Explore the Case: Petition No. 119/PUU-XXIV/2026

 

Author               : Sri Pujianti
Editor                 : N. Rosi
Public Relations: Fauzan F.
Translator          : SO

 

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.

---