Jakarta (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court held the sixth hearing on the material review of Law No. 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP/New KUHAP) on Case No. 69/PUU-XXIV/2026 on Thursday, July 2, 2026. The hearing was scheduled to receive testimony from Related Parties, comprising the Supreme Court, the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), and the Attorney General’s Office, in the Plenary Courtroom, Jakarta.

According to the Petitioners, who comprise nine advocates and one university student, Article 158, letter e, of the KUHAP stipulates the object of a pretrial motion, including “unjustified delay in case handling”, but it does not specify the legal subject entitled to file a pretrial application. The KPK, represented by the Head of Legal Bureau, Iskandar Marwanto, stated that the inclusion of a third party or other party in pretrial proceedings is only possible if they are given a power of attorney from the first subject that comprises the suspect, family of the suspect, victim, family of the victim, and complainant.

“Related to the formulation of Article 158 letter e of the KUHAP, which stipulates the pretrial object on the unjustified delay in case handling, by not defining certain parties entitled to file for a pretrial application, it does not mean that it limits access the applicant to file for the motion as long as they are given the power of attorney to legally represent suspects or victims,” Iskandar said.

He added that using such a parameter clarifies the outcome of the pretrial proceedings, including ensuring the guarantee of rights for the suspects, the suspects' families, victims, the victims' families, and the complainants. Meanwhile, a third party represents the interests of the suspects or victims.

Iskandar stated that granting the petitioners’ petition to give legal standing to other parties whose constitutional rights is harmed will create another legal issue, such as to prove the constitutional harm of those that are not affected or related to a case – a person or entity, coming from a distant place and having absolutely no connection to the criminal case, then alleges that the handling of the criminal case has caused a constitutional violation.

Therefore, in this context, to ensure that the pretrial proceedings truly serve to examine the validity of the case handling by the parties involved, if a person or party alleges a constitutional violation, that party must be authorized by the suspect or the victim. Thus, in such cases, the criterion for legal standing is whether the person granting the authorization is indeed the victim of the criminal act.

Meanwhile, according to Iskandar, there is indeed an issue in the context of criminal offenses regarding the concept of “victim,” which remains in a gray area and is not yet clearly defined—specifically, who exactly is considered a victim of a corruption offense. Article 1 point 50 of the KUHAP states that a victim is a person who suffers physical, mental, and/or economic harm caused by a criminal offense. Given this concept, it remains unclear who should be authorized to act on the victim's behalf in a corruption case. In this context, it is relevant for the Court, in this review, to provide an interpretation of who is meant by a “victim of a corruption crime.”

With such an interpretation of the “victim of a corruption crime,” parties such as the Petitioners in this case may ultimately be granted the authority to file a pretrial motion on behalf of the victim’s interests. Consequently, the Petitioners’ filing of such a motion would not be based on their own interests, which were previously entirely unrelated to the criminal case in question.

Article 158 letter e of the KUHAP reads: “The District Court has the authority to examine and rule, in accordance with the provisions of this Law, on: e. the postponement of case proceedings without valid grounds.”

Also read:

Lawyers Challenge Criminal Law Procedures Code Clause on Unjustified Case Delays

Petitioners Refine Challenge to Criminal Law Procedure Code on Pretrial Applicants

Govt Maintains Obtaining Permission from Supreme Court Chief Justice to Arrest Judges Not An Absolute Impunity

Police Explains Who May File a Pretrial Motion Over Delayed Case Handling

Petition No. 69/PUU-XXIV/2026 was filed by Irpan Suriadiata, Habiburrahman, Titi Tantri, Abdul Majid, Lalu Muhamad Rizal, Lalu M. Kazwaini, M. Iskandar, Ida Husna, Ahmad Muzakkir, and student M. Nova Taupik Saputra. The Petitioners argue that the provision does not clearly specify which legal subjects may file a pretrial motion when law-enforcement authorities delay or fail to follow up on a case. They contended that the provision does not specify who may file a pretrial application, resulting in citizens being deprived of a legal avenue to protect their rights, the absence of a mechanism to challenge decisions to discontinue case proceedings, and legal uncertainty regarding the protection of citizens' rights.

The Petitioners request that the Court declare Article 158 letter e of the KUHAP to be inconsistent with the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia to the extent that it is not interpreted to mean that a pretrial motion regarding the postponement of a case without valid grounds may be filed by any party with a legal interest in the case, including the suspect or the suspect’s family, the victim or the victim’s family, the complainant, or an attorney or legal aid provider authorized to represent the legal interests of the suspect or the victim, as well as any other party whose constitutional rights have been infringed upon as a result of such postponement.

Case tracking: Petition No. 69/PUU-XXIV/2026

Author: Mimi Kartika

Editor: N. Rosi

Translator: Rizky Kurnia Chaesario/Yuanna Sisilia

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.