Petitioner Christian Adrianus Sihite delivering the revised petition on the judicial review hearing of Law No. 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code on Wednesday (20/05). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court held another material review hearing of Law No. 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP). The second hearing of Petition No. 157/PUU-XXIV/2026 filed by Christian Adrianus Sihite was held on Wednesday, May 20, 2026, at the Plenary Courtroom.

In the hearing presided over by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, along with Justices Adies Kadir and Liliek P. Adi, Christian Adrianus conveyed the revised petition. He mentioned that he had added another petitioner, Erfina Manurung, explained the petitioners’ legal standing, and tested the object, namely Article 198 paragraph (1) of the Military Court. Therefore, they test two articles against the 1945 Constitution.

“On the explanation of the legal basis, enforcement based on the victim explained with theory and legal comparison in several countries, civil rights regarding fair trial based on the international human rights convention, and there is also a revision on the petitum,” explained Christian Adrianus.

Also read:

Advocate Challenges Criminal Military and Civil Court in KUHAP

Petition No. 157/PUU-XXIV/2026 was filed by Christian Adrianus Sihite, and during the second hearing, Erfina Manurung was added as Petitioner II.

During the preliminary hearing on Thursday, May 7, 2026, the Petitioner stated that Article 170 paragraph (2) of the KUHAP contradicts Article 27 paragraph (1) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. He stated that, as an advocate, he has the obligation to provide his client, especially the victim, with the fullest legal defense to protect his/her interests and to ensure that the case is brought to the proper court. However, the norm focuses solely on the perpetrator’s status and does not consider the victim and the harm he/she suffers. Therefore, the Petitioner cannot be certain that his client’s case will be examined in a court that will most effectively protect the victim.

In a case involving military personnel, it is most likely to be brought to the military court. Meanwhile, his client is a civilian who, in principle, is entitled to transparency in the court’s procedure and equivalent access, as well as optimum protection. However, in such a situation, the Petitioner faces restrictions in carrying out his function to provide effective assistance, in terms of access, process control, and victim participation.

The uncertainty of the norm means the type of court cannot be determined from the outset. Therefore, the Petitioner cannot develop a proper legal strategy or determine the optimal evidentiary approach, and may risk his client's position. Meanwhile, as an advocate, he has a professional responsibility to provide the best legal service and ensure maximum protection for his clients. Due to the implementation of the tested norm, the Petitioner cannot guarantee the quality of defense he should provide, which directly harms the professionalism and integrity of the profession.

In the petitum, the Petitioner requests the Court to declare Article 170 paragraph (1) of the KUHAP conditionally unconstitutional as long as it is not interpreted as “Criminal offenses committed jointly by persons subject to the general court jurisdiction and persons subject to the military court jurisdiction, and/or involving civilian victims or causing harm to civilians, shall be examined and adjudicated by a court within the general judicial system.”

Case tracking: Petition No. 157/PUU-XXIV/2026

Author: Sri Pujianti.

Editor: N. Rosi.

PR: Fauzan F.

Translator: Rizky Kurnia Chaesario

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.

---