Revision Of The Criminal Procedure Code Is Urged, For The Sake Of Legal Protection And Justice Certainty

JAKARTA The revision of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) is considered urgent considering its age is close to half a century and is no longer relevant to current legal needs.

Chairman of the Association of Indonesian Law Postgraduate Doctors (PEDPHI), Prof. Abdul Chair Ramadhan, assessed that the discussion of the Criminal Procedure Code by Commission III of the Indonesian House of Representatives needs to be carried out immediately to strengthen the formal criminal law. According to him, so far there have been many irregularities, ranging from intimidation in investigations to discrimination by law enforcement officials.

"The criminal formal is not only aimed at punishing the perpetrators, but also must guarantee protection for the innocent," he said, Saturday, April 19.

The Criminal Procedure Code Bill is also considered important in realizing procedural and substantial justice as the foundation of legal certainty. One of the renewal efforts carried out is clarifying the suspect's rights from the start, including legal assistance, examination recordings, and access to case files.

In addition, the bill also regulates the right of advocates to object to detention and provides space for the concept of a "crown witness" in dismantling the involvement of other perpetrators in criminal acts.

In terms of detention, the Criminal Procedure Code Bill clarifies the parameters that must be met, as stipulated in Article 93 Paragraph (5), in order to prevent abuse of authority.

Prof. Abdul Chair emphasized that the ultimate goal of law is benefit, including through strengthening a restorative justice approach. This bill expands the restorative justice space, which was previously limited to only in the investigation stage.

"With peace, the element of error subjectively falls and the perpetrator cannot be held criminally responsible," he explained.

However, he criticized the proposal to replace the pretrial mechanism with the Preemptive Examining Judge (HPP) institution. According to him, this is contrary to the principle of functional differentiation between investigators and judges, and has the potential to cause legal uncertainty.

"The Criminal Procedure Code must maintain the principle of 'fair legal certainty'. The HPP proposal can actually lead to conflicts of norms and benefit in the legal system," he concluded.