Petitioner’s legal counsel attending the Petition Revision Hearing of Case No. 181/PUU-XXIV/2026 on the material review of Law No. 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code and Law No. 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code on Monday (22/6). Photo by MKRI/Bay.

Jakarta (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court held another material review hearing of Law No. 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code and Law No. 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code on Monday, June 22, 2026. The second hearing for Petition No. 181/PUU-XXIV/2026, submitted by Abdul Aziz, an advocate, was scheduled to examine the main points of the revised petition.

On the hearing presided over by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, legal counsel Abdul Halim stated that his party has revised the part on the Petitioner’s legal standing and reasoning.

“To declare the term ‘authorities’ in Article 280 paragraph (1) letters b and c, the term ‘authorities’ in Elucidation of Article 280 paragraph (1) letter b, the term ‘authorities’ in Article 293 paragraphs (3) and (4), the term ‘authorities’ in Article 294 letter b of Law No. 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code violate the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and has no legally binding force. To declare the term ‘authorities’ in Article 269 paragraph (2) of Law No. 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code contradicts the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and has no legally binding force,” legal counsel Abdul Halim said, reading out the petitum.

Also read:

Petitioner Questions Discrepancy on Advocate Protection and Other Law Enforcement Authorities in Court

In his petition, the Petitioner argues that the term “authorities” in Article 280 paragraph (1) letters b and c, Elucidation of Article 280 paragraph (1) letter b, Article 293 paragraphs (3) and (4), and Article 294 letter b of the KUHP and the term “authorities” in Article 269 paragraph (2) of the KUHAP are in breach of Article 28D paragraph (1) and Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. The Petitioner stated that the aforementioned articles constitute a criminal offense against the court proceedings; therefore, all law enforcement authorities in the court proceedings must be afforded equal protection without exception. Moreover, advocates are part of the court proceedings and are entitled to an equal position with other law enforcement authorities in enforcing the law and justice.

However, the provisions in question undermine the legal recognition of advocates as law enforcement authorities equal to other law enforcement authorities. The Petitioner argues that this situation arises because the relevant norm, which is intended to protect all law enforcement authorities performing their duties in court proceedings, uses the term "authorities" in a manner that excludes advocates from its scope of protection. Consequently, the provisions fail to provide legal certainty and protection to advocates, while extending such guarantees only to other law enforcement authorities involved in court proceedings. According to the Petitioner, advocates are likewise an integral part of the law enforcement system and, therefore, should receive the same legal protection as they carry out their professional duties before the court.

Case tracking: Petition No. 181/PUU-XXIV/2026 (in Indonesian)

Penulis: Sri Pujianti
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P.
Humas: Fauzan Febriyan

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 will prevail.