The Petitioners and counsels at the preliminary hearing for Case No. 188/PUU-XXIV/2026 on the material review of Law No. 25 of 2025 on Criminal Procedure Code, Wednesday (6/10/2026). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Puspita Aulia, Andina Oktariani, and Rizka Restiani (Petitioners I-III) is requesting the Constitutional Court to conduct material review of Law No. 20 of 2025 on Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP). The preliminary hearing for Case No. 188/PUU-XXIV/2026 took place on Wednesday, June 10, 2026, with Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra chairing the panel.

In their petition, the Petitioners sought the constitutional review of Article 170 paragraph (1) of the KUHAP, arguing that it is contrary to the 1945 Constitution. Kurniawan, counsel for the Petitioners, explained that Petitioner I had lost her right to a sense of security and to a decent future livelihood as a result of the unlawful murder of her husband by the perpetrators.

Petitioner I is the wife of the late Mohammad Ilham Pradipta, former branch head of PT Bank Rakyat Indonesia (Persero) Tbk, who was abducted by a group of both civilians and military personnel on August 20, 2025, in Pasar Rebo, East Jakarta. Her husband was found dead on Thursday, August 21, 2025, in Kampung Karangsambung, Nagasari Village, Bekasi Regency. Meanwhile, Petitioners II and III are the biological siblings of the late Mohammad Ilham Pradipta.

Criminal proceedings, separate the civilian and military perpetrators. As a result, Petitioner I faced difficulties in pursuing restitution against the military perpetrators. According to the Petitioners, this occurred because the phrase “examined and adjudicated by a court within the general judicial system” in the challenged provision has created legal uncertainty, given that military perpetrators are subject to Law No. 31 of 1997 on Military Courts.

“The constitutional harm is specific and actual. After the Petitioners heard the demands of the military prosecutor against the military defendants, there appeared to be an attempt to remove the element of premeditation in the killing of the husband of Petitioner I by rejecting the request of the civilian defendants to testify in the proceedings before Military Court II-08 Jakarta,” Kurniawan stated while presenting the principal arguments of the petition.

On that basis, the Petitioners requested the Court to declare the phrase “examined and adjudicated by a court within the general judicial system” in Article 170 paragraph (1) of Law No. 20 of 2025 contrary to the 1945 Constitution and conditionally unconstitutional insofar as it is not interpreted to mean: “must be examined and adjudicated by a court within the general judicial system.”

Justices’ Advice

In response to the petition, Constitutional Justice Adies Kadir advised the Petitioners to strengthen the argument concerning legal certainty, as this issue is more closely connected to the constitutional question being raised. “This petition seeks an interpretation. Therefore, for the posita (grounds for the petition) and petitum (relief being sought) to be consistent, it must be explained whether the phrase already sufficiently guarantees legal certainty. This is not merely a matter of adding the word ‘must,’ but rather a legal necessity arising from the practice of separating connected cases between different judicial systems,” he advised.

Constitutional Justice Liliek P. Adi further observed that because the criminal case involving the Petitioners has not yet obtained permanent legal force (inkracht), it cannot serve as the sole concrete basis for the constitutional review petition. “Accordingly, it would be necessary to include prior judgments that are already final and binding concerning connection cases between the general and military courts,” he explained.

Meanwhile, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra requested that the Petitioners elaborate on the causal relationship between the challenged provision and the constitutional harm they claimed to have suffered. “In the legal arguments, there is not yet a clear explanation of the contradiction with the Constitution. That must be presented, because what the Court will assess is the alleged constitutional inconsistency. Without that, we cannot proceed to examine the substance of the petition,” he stated.

At the end of the session, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra announced that the Petitioners would have 14 days to revise the petition. The revised the petition must be submitted to the Court no later than 12:00 WIB on Tuesday, June 23, 2026. The Court will then schedule a second hearing to examine the revisions to the petition.

Explore Case No. 188/PUU-XXIV/2026 (in Indonesian).

Author         : Sri Pujianti
Editor          : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR               : Fauzan Febriyan
Translator     : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

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.

---