Petitioners attending the resumed hearing in the judicial review of Law No. 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code on Wednesday (08/07) at the Courtroom. Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
Jakarta (MKRI) - The Petitioners in Petition No. 62/PUU-XXIV/2026, seeking a judicial review of Law Number 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), were not ready to present their expert as scheduled on Wednesday, July 8, 2026, before the Constitutional Court (MK). Petition No. 62/PUU-XXIV/2026 was filed by 14 petitioners, consisting of active postgraduate students in the Law and Criminal Justice System Program at the Faculty of Law, Universitas Indonesia, and one advocate.
“For Petition No. 62, the Petitioners have requested a postponement to present their expert. They are not ready yet, is that correct?” Chief Justice Suhartoyo said, opening the hearing at the Plenary Courtroom in Jakarta.
Meanwhile, for Petition No. 69/PUU-XXIV/2026, the Court also rescheduled the hearing on the KUHAP review to hear testimony from the Petitioners’ witness. The witness will be examined at a subsequent hearing after the Court has heard the Petitioners’ expert.
“As for Petition No. 69, the witness will also be examined after the expert. That is the order of the proceedings,” Chief Justice Suhartoyo said.
Accordingly, at this hearing, the Court heard only statements from the Related Party, the Attorney General’s Office of the Republic of Indonesia, in Petitions No. 89/PUU-XXIV/2026 and No. 92/PUU-XXIV/2026 on the judicial review of the KUHAP.
Also read:
UI Graduate Students Questions Supreme Court Chief Justice’s Approval to Arrest Judges
UI Graduate Students Add Constitutional Loss Matrix in KUHAP Judicial Review
House: OTT Investigations of Judges Do Not Require Supreme Court Chief Justice’s Approval
Supreme Court: Chief Justice’s Approval to Arrest Judges Creates Institutional Control Mechanism
Case No. 62/PUU-XXIV/2026 was filed by 14 Petitioners consisting of students of the Graduate Program in Law and Criminal Justice System at the Faculty of Law, University of Indonesia, along with an advocate. They challenge the requirement that investigators obtain approval from the Supreme Court Chief Justice before arresting or detaining judges.
The Petitioners argue that granting the Supreme Court Chief Justice exclusive authority to authorize the arrest and detention of judges is not the only way to safeguard judicial independence. They further contend that there is insufficient justification for providing judges with special procedural protection through an absolute approval mechanism, including in caught-in-the-act situations or cases involving certain criminal offenses.
According to the Petitioners, when the objective of protecting judicial independence is weighed against the need for legal certainty, fairness, and equality before the law, the provision risks creating injustice. They therefore request that the challenged provisions be declared unconstitutional and no longer legally binding.
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
Related Parties Explain Third Party in Pretrial Proceedings
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. 62/PUU-XXIV/2026 and 69/PUU-XXIV/2026 (in Indonesian)
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.
Wednesday, July 08, 2026 | 14:30 WIB 34