Deposing The Material Trial To The Constitutional Court, Applicants Want No Engineering In The Application Of The Criminal Law

Photo via Antara.

JAKARTA - Law (UU) Number 8 of 1981 concerning Criminal Procedure Law was sued to the Constitutional Court (MK). Rudy Hartono Iskandar submitted the application for judicial review of the Criminal Law through his attorney Alamsyah Hanafiah.

The case numbered 96/PUU-XX/2022. Alamsyah said the judicial review was carried out to avoid legal engineering.

"The judicial review by the applicant is also in order to prevent abuse of authority by investigators," he said in Jakarta, quoted from Antara, Monday, October 1.

Alamsyah said this was intended so that every person reported in a police report suspected of a criminal act would not be fabricated or discriminated against by law.

It also aims to avoid extortion by investigators by issuing 11 investigation warrants in the same legal object.

So, he continued, the investigation would take six years, and there would be parties who were suspects for life.

In his petitum, Alamsyah said that the judicial review of Law Number 8 of 1981 concerning Procedure Law was also submitted in order to avoid criminalization of the law against every citizen being examined by investigators, such as in the a quo case or what was allegedly experienced by the applicant.

In front of the panel of judges, Alamsyah said that his client was suspected of being criminalized because one police report was issued with 11 investigation warrants with each team of investigators investigating the same cases and objects.

"In fact, the human rights of a suspect are guaranteed in the Criminal Procedure Code and the 1945 Constitution," he explained.

A person's equation before the law has clearly been regulated in the law or also called equality before the law. It concerns the rights of every citizen.

In the virtual trial, the applicant's attorney also asked the panel of judges to decide the case fairly with the following verdict.

First, try and grant the petitioner's request in its entirety.

Second, stating the phrase "report" as specified in Article 1 point 24 is a notification submitted by a person because of the right or obligation based on law, to an authorized official about whether or moderate or suspected a criminal act will occur in Law Number 8 of 1981 concerning the Criminal Procedure Law contrary to the 1945 Constitution and does not have binding legal force.

This is not interpreted as saying in the words of one police report accompanied by one investigation warrant. In addition, stating that Article 7 Paragraph (1) of Law Number 8 of 1981 is contrary to the 1945 Constitution conditionally or does not have binding legal force.