JAKARTA, MKRI – The Court held a hearing for Petition No. 2/PUU-XXIV/2026 concerning the judicial review of Law No. 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code on Thursday (April 30, 2026), with the agenda of hearing expert and witness testimony for the Petitioners. Police Commissioner (Ret.) Alfons Loemau, a lecturer at the Police Science College, stated that the Petitioners’ experience shows that if one of the three stages of inquiry and investigation is not properly conducted, the entire process becomes defective.

“Investigation must pass through three inseparable stages: planning, implementation, and supervision,” Alfons stated before the Plenary Courtroom.

He explained that if not all parties are involved at each stage, the outcome cannot reflect justice. In such conditions, the principle of equality before the law is not fulfilled, as a person cannot be considered equal if they are not given the opportunity to be heard from the outset.

According to Alfons, the norms under review create gaps that make existing provisions vague and open to broad discretion, potentially harming constitutional rights, particularly those of the Petitioners.

He emphasized that the transition from inquiry to investigation must follow a structured and accountable process. However, the provisions under review—Article 16, Article 19 paragraph (1), Article 22 paragraph (1), and Article 23 paragraph (5) of the Criminal Procedure Code—contain fundamental weaknesses.

First, regarding interviews, obtaining statements from relevant parties is mandatory, not optional. Without hearing the reported party, investigators rely on one-sided information, which risks turning the process into justification rather than a search for truth. Therefore, both complainant and reported party must be heard as part of due process of law.

Second, regarding case exposure, its function is to assess whether the process and conclusions are based on complete and objective facts. If conducted without involving the parties concerned, its supervisory function becomes ineffective.

Third, regarding summons and legal status, individuals must be informed of their status when examined. Without such clarity, they cannot fully exercise their rights and are placed in a disadvantaged position.

Fourth, regarding the report receipt, this document is essential as the basis of a case. If only the complainant receives it, while the reported party remains unaware, an imbalance arises from the outset, allowing the process to proceed without their knowledge.

Alfons noted that such conditions often result in the reported party only learning of the case at an advanced stage, which is unjust. Therefore, investigators must notify individuals of their status and ensure equal access to key documents, including police reports and case records.

Without such access, information imbalance arises and undermines equal participation, which is essential to restorative justice.

“How can there be legal certainty if a person is examined without knowing their status, and how can a process be objective if supervision excludes the parties concerned? The norms under review must be clarified to restore law enforcement to its fundamental principles of justice, balance, and legal certainty,” Alfons concluded.

Also read:

Equality of Reporting-Reported Parties under Criminal Procedure Code Questioned

Petitioners Revise Petition on Equality Between Reporting-Reported Parties

House, Govt Ask a Delay of Hearing on Equality Between Reporting-Reported Parties

House and Government Explain Function of Report Receipt in Criminal Procedure Code

Previously, two citizens, Lina (Petitioner I) and Sandra Paramita (Petitioner II), filed a petition for judicial review of Article 16, Article 19 paragraph (1), Article 22 paragraph (1), and Article 23 paragraph (5) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Petitioners argued that the a quo provisions are inconsistent with the principle of equality before the law as guaranteed under Article 27 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

The Petitioners contended that these provisions grant rights and protection only to the complainant by requiring investigators to issue a receipt of report or complaint, without providing equal guarantees for the reported party to be informed, heard, or to defend themselves at the same stage. As a result, the reported party is placed in a significantly disadvantaged position due to unequal access to information.

In their petitum, the Petitioners requested the Court to declare that Article 16 of the Criminal Procedure Code is conditionally unconstitutional and has no binding legal force insofar as it is not interpreted to include: “... (3) at the inquiry stage, where there is a reported party, the investigator must first conduct clarification with the reported party before escalating the case to the investigation stage.”

The Petitioners further requested the Court to declare that Article 19 paragraph (1) is conditionally unconstitutional and lacks binding legal force insofar as it is not interpreted to require notification to and involvement of directly interested parties, namely the complainant and the reported party, in case exposure proceedings.

Additionally, the Petitioners requested the Court to declare that Article 22 paragraph (1) is conditionally unconstitutional and has no binding legal force insofar as it is not interpreted as follows: “For the purpose of investigation, investigators may summon or approach an individual to obtain information, provided that the individual is first informed of their status as a suspect, prospective suspect, or witness.”

Furthermore, the Petitioners requested the Court to declare that Article 23 paragraph (5) is conditionally unconstitutional and has no binding legal force insofar as it is not interpreted to require that the receipt of report or complaint be provided to both the complainant and the reported party as equally interested parties in a criminal case.

Author             : Mimi Kartika

Editor              : N. Rosi

PR                   : Fauzan Febriyan

Author             : Nies Lindy

Explore Case No. 2/PUU-XXIV/2026

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.

---