The Petitioners, accompanied by their legal counsel Jovi Andrea Bachtiar, present the principal arguments in their petition for judicial review of the Criminal Procedure Code Law (KUHAP) before the Constitutional Court’s panel hearing, Wednesday (05/06/2026). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA, (MKRI) – A law student in the Legal Studies Program at Universitas Terbuka, Bernita Matondang, has filed a petition for judicial review of Article 1 point 28 of Law Number 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP). According to the Petitioner, the phrase “reasonably suspected” in the provision defining a suspect fails to provide a clear distinction between suspicion based on facts and suspicion based on mere assumptions, thereby creating the potential for inconsistency in law enforcement practice.

“This is highly dangerous because a person may be subjected to criminal proceedings before all elements of the alleged offense are objectively established,” Bernita stated during the preliminary hearing for Case Number 150/PUU-XXIV/2026 on Wednesday (05/06/2026) in the Constitutional Court’s Panel Hearing Room, Jakarta.

She explained that the absence of such differentiation cannot be separated from the need to provide law enforcement authorities with a degree of discretion in carrying out investigative functions. However, such discretion, she argued, must remain within objectively reviewable limits so that it does not evolve into unchecked authority.

For that reason, the Petitioner argues that the phrase “reasonably suspected” should be interpreted as suspicion based on verified facts and supported by a rational preliminary evidentiary basis, so that it can be clearly distinguished from speculative suspicion. Without such interpretation, the a quo provision risks creating legal uncertainty and opening the door to abuse of authority, which could ultimately harm the constitutional rights of citizens, including the Petitioner, particularly the right to fair legal certainty as guaranteed under Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD 1945).

For reference, Article 1 point 28 of the Criminal Procedure Code states: “A suspect is a person who, based on their acts or circumstances, may reasonably be suspected of committing a criminal offense based on at least 2 (two) items of evidence.” The Petitioner contends that the phrase “reasonably suspected” in this provision raises concerns from the perspective of the void for vagueness doctrine if it is not interpreted in a clear and measurable manner.

Under modern legal doctrine, a legal norm is considered problematic if it fails to provide clarity regarding the standards of conduct it regulates or the legal consequences that may arise from it, thereby creating room for inconsistent and potentially arbitrary enforcement. The phrase “reasonably suspected” in the a quo provision does not explicitly explain what conditions or indicators may serve as the basis for designating a person as a suspect, thus creating uncertainty in its application.

Nevertheless, the Petitioner acknowledged that the existence of the phrase is fundamentally intended to provide flexibility during the early stages of criminal proceedings, which inherently do not yet require the level of proof expected during trial. Therefore, the constitutional issue does not lie in the existence of the phrase itself, but rather in the absence of clear limitations on its interpretation.

In the petitum, the Petitioner requests that the Court declare the phrase “reasonably suspected of committing a criminal offense based on at least 2 (two) items of evidence” in Article 1 point 28 of the Criminal Procedure Code conditionally unconstitutional and therefore lacking binding legal force unless interpreted to mean that a suspect designation is valid only if based on at least 2 (two) lawful evidentiary items that are of sufficient quality, relevant to the elements of the alleged criminal offense, logically interconnected, and mutually reinforcing so as to create objectively reasonable suspicion, and, specifically for material offenses, further supported by preliminary indications that the element of consequence has been fulfilled.

The petition was heard before a Panel of Constitutional Justices chaired by Deputy Chief Justice Suhartoyo, accompanied by Constitutional Justices Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh and M. Guntur Hamzah. During the advisory session, Guntur stated that the legal reasoning presented in the petition must remain consistent with the petitum.

He noted that the Petitioner elaborated on the interpretation of the phrase “reasonably suspected” in the legal arguments, while the petitum sought reinterpretation of the broader phrase “reasonably suspected of committing a criminal offense based on at least 2 (two) items of evidence.”

“This must be consistent, because if it is not, your petition could later be considered vague (obscuur),” Guntur said. “Which of these is it that you actually seek to have interpreted?” he added.

Before closing the hearing, Suhartoyo stated that the Petitioner was given 14 days to revise the petition. The revised petition, in both softcopy and hardcopy, had to be received by the Court no later than Tuesday, 05/19/2026, at 12:00 p.m. WIB.

Author             : Mimi Kartika

Editor              : N. Rosi.

Translator       : Agusweka PS.

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 prevails.

Case Track: Number 150/PUU-XXIV/2026

---