Regarding Santet Article In Criminal Code Bill, This Is What Legal Experts Say

Illustration (Pixabay)

JAKARTA - Unissula Semarang legal expert Jawade Hafidz assesses the santet (witchcraft) article in the Draft Law on the Criminal Code (RUU KUHP) needs to be reviewed because it is very subjective, even obscure (unclear).

"The formulation of Article 252 of the Criminal Code Bill is very subjective, obscure," said a lecturer at the Unissula Law Faculty, Dr. Jawade Hafidz, S.H., M.H. answered Antara's question in Semarang, Wednesday.

Article 252 Paragraph (1) states that any person who declares himself to have supernatural powers, informs, gives hope, offers, or provides services to others that because his actions can cause illness, death, or mental or physical suffering, the person will be sentenced to criminal sanction of imprisonment for a maximum of 3 years or a maximum fine of Category IV (Rp200 million).

If everyone commits the act to seek profit or make it a livelihood or habit, the penalty can be increased by 1/3 (vide Paragraph 2).

Furthermore, it is stated in the explanation of Article 252 of the Draft Criminal Code that this provision is intended to overcome public unrest caused by the practice of black magic, which legally creates difficulties in proving it.

It was also explained that this provision was also intended to prevent early and end the practice of vigilantism carried out by members of the community against someone accused of being a traditional healer (witchcraft).

Jawade Hafidz emphasized that the article is subjective and obscure because the interpretation really depends on each other's point of view.

Touching on the matter of proving against violators of the witchcraft article, he stated that until now there has been no measuring instrument to be able to prove such practices.

He then mentioned that the provisions in Article 184 of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) regarding five pieces of evidence that are the basis for proving a person's act of committing a criminal act are still vague and debatable (not certain).

In Law Number 8 of 1981 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code Article 184 Paragraph (1), it is stated that the valid evidence is witness testimony, expert testimony, letters, instructions, and statements of the defendant.