The Petitioners attend the pronouncement of the decision in the judicial review of Law Number 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code at the Constitutional Court on Monday (05/25/2026). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
JAKARTA, (MKRI) - The Constitutional Court has declared inadmissible a petition challenging Article 16 paragraph (1), Article 42, and Article 113 paragraphs (4) and (5) letters (a) and (d) of Law Number 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP). The petition was filed by ten individuals comprising university students and a businessperson. The Court delivered Decision Number 137/PUU-XXIV/2026 during a Pronouncement of Decision Hearing held on Monday (05/25/2026).
Reading the Court's legal considerations, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra stated that the Petitioners had failed to clearly explain their legal standing and the constitutional harm allegedly resulting from the challenged provisions, whether actual or reasonably foreseeable.
“Petitioners Two through Nine, in explaining their legal standing as university students, merely alleged that their constitutional rights had been impaired by the disruption of legal certainty and the consistency of legal doctrine, without further explaining what specific legal doctrine would cause such harm,” Saldi said while reading the Court's legal considerations.
The Court reached a similar conclusion regarding Petitioner One, a chemical trading businessperson, and Petitioner Ten, who works as an administrator at a law office. According to the Court, neither had adequately explained their activities or the constitutional harm they allegedly suffered as a result of the challenged provisions.
“Because Petitioners One through Ten have not clearly described any activities or circumstances in which they have been directly involved with investigative measures or searches, and because there is insufficient evidence to convince the Court of any connection between such activities and the alleged constitutional harm suffered by Petitioners One through Ten,” Saldi stated.
Based on these considerations, the Court held that the Petitioners lacked legal standing to bring the case.
Read also:
Three Phrases in Search Provision of Criminal Procedure Code Challenged as Ambiguous
Petitioners Expand Scope of Challenge to Search and Seizure Provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code
As additional background, ten individuals filed a judicial review petition challenging the search provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Constitutional Court. They are Yuli Dahlia, Peberius Gea, Endang Kartika, Muhammad Maulana, Indry Victoria Silalahi, Ferdinan Olla, Riesa Zharifah, Inggrid Tanama, Novi Puspita Sari, and Widiati Helmida Juliana.
Registered as Petition Number 137/PUU-XXIV/2026, the application challenged the alleged lack of clarity in three phrases contained in Article 16 paragraph (1), Article 42, and Article 113 paragraphs (4) and (5) letters (a) and (d) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The phrases at issue were “under urgent circumstances,” “a situation based on the investigator's assessment,” and “a geographically difficult-to-access location.”
Article 113 paragraph (4) provides, “Under urgent circumstances, an Investigator may conduct a search without prior authorization from the chief judge of the district court.” Article 113 paragraph (5) letters (a) and (d) further provide, “Urgent circumstances as referred to in paragraph (4) include: (a) a geographically difficult-to-access location; and (d) a situation based on the investigator's assessment.”
During the Preliminary Examination Hearing held on Thursday (04/23/2026), the Petitioners argued that the phrases contained in Article 113 paragraphs (4) and (5) letters (a) and (d) of the Criminal Procedure Code lacked objective parameters. They contended that the cumulative use of the phrases “under urgent circumstances,” “a situation based on the investigator's assessment,” and “a geographically difficult-to-access location” created vague, ambiguous, and unpredictable legal norms.
The Petitioners further argued that these three phrases collectively create an unpredictable legal norm, thereby violating the principle of legal certainty. They supported their argument by referring to data from the Indonesian Ombudsman in 2024, which indicated that maladministration remained prevalent, including undue delays, failures to provide public services, and procedural irregularities.
According to the Petitioners, vague legal provisions increase the potential for abuses of authority, including searches conducted without adequate oversight. They maintained that such conditions not only directly prejudice individuals but also undermine the principle of due process of law within the criminal justice system.
In their petition, the Petitioners requested that the Court declare the three phrases contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD 1945) and without binding legal force unless interpreted more precisely. With respect to the phrase “under urgent circumstances,” they proposed that it be construed as a concrete situation in which obtaining prior authorization from the chief judge of the district court is genuinely impossible and not based solely on the investigator's subjective assessment.
Likewise, they requested that the phrase “a situation based on the investigator's assessment” should not serve as the sole basis for conducting a search without judicial authorization and should remain subject to judicial review. As for the phrase “a geographically difficult-to-access location,” they argued that it should be interpreted as a factual condition involving disrupted communication or transportation access that objectively prevents obtaining court authorization.
The Petitioners emphasized that clarity of legal norms is essential not only to guarantee legal certainty but also to ensure a proper balance between the state's law enforcement powers and the rights of citizens in criminal proceedings. (*)
Author : Ilham Wiryadi Muhammad.
Editor : N. Rosi.
PR : Fauzan F.
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: Petition Number 137/PUU-XXIV/2026
Full Decision: Number 137/PUU-XXIV/2026
Monday, May 25, 2026 | 17:00 WIB 180