At the moment, ICJR is conducting
rapid assessment on the Supreme
Court decision related to capital
punishment. Support us to stop
capital punishment in Indonesia.
Issue No.1/2015
This edition of ICLaD (March 2015) is focusing on the changes within the Indonesian
criminal justice system, which was recently realized by the decision of the Constitutional
Court. ICJR notes that there are some significant changes within the criminal justice
system: change on KUHAP and other laws that incorporate criminal justice system.
Additionally, ICLaD also discusses case review (peninjauan kembali) for criminal cases.
Provision on case review has generated debates due to the recent capital punishment
stories. For the first time in history, Indonesia is executing death penalty in large numbers.
The Attorney General Office, including the Supreme Court, are trying to regulate on how
many times a case review may be filed, in order to ease the capital punishment execution.
ICJR encourages the government and the Supreme Court to revoke the regulation that
limits the case review submission, and at the same time re-regulate the definition of
novum (new evidences). With a good comprehension on novum, ICJR believes that there is
no necessity to limit the rights of the convict to submit a case review petition.
Enjoy Reading,
Ifdhal Kasim
Editor in Chief
Case Review and the Lack of
Criminal Procedural Law Reform
Robert F. Sidauruk
Even
though
of
Some of the “classic problems” regarding
extraordinary legal remedy (upaya hukum
case review are yet to be responded by the
luar biasa) in the form of case review
Supreme Court. For instance, a case review
(peninjauan kembali) has been used since
from
decades ago, the debates and controversies
(sentenced 15 years of imprisonment, and
surrounding it are inevitable. The lack of
a fugitive), was allowed by the Supreme
clarity
submission
Court in 2013.2 In addition, other problems
procedures, and requirements to file one
such as case review submitted by the
(legal ground), are some of the issues that
prosecutor, including case review against
need to be addressed by the House of
acquittal (putusan bebas).3
for
the
case
mechanism
review
the
wife
of
Sudjiono
Timan
Representatives (House) when revising the
Criminal Procedural Law (KUHAP).
The root of these problems is actually the
lack of procedural law for submitting a case
Trying to fill the hole left by the lawmakers,
review petition, including the definition of
the Supreme Court decided to conduct its
“novum”. The Concept of case review itself
own way. The result, however, does not
is based on criminal justice system that
give any clear solution and consequently
sometimes lead to unfair trial (peradilan
many case review petitions are piled up at
sesat).4 In general, KUHAP stipulates that a
the Supreme Court.
case review petition may be submitted by
the convict or his/her heir to the Supreme
Another
problem
came
when
the
Constitutional Court rendered Decision No.
Court,
against
a
final
and
binding
decision—not including acquittal.5
34/PUU-XI/2013, stating that the one-time
limitation of case review submission under
Article
268
(3)
of
KUHAP
is
unconstitutional.1
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License
Under the case review petition, the applicant
the
must elaborate three main issues: 1) there is
submitting a case review, either by issuing
a new condition that if discovered during the
a Supreme Court regulation nor a circular
trial, the proceeding will lead to acquittal,
letter. In fact, a further elaboration on
less sanction, or the indictment is rejected by
“novum” definition is necessary to assure
the court; 2) inconsistency between one
that
decision and another; and/or 3) judge’s
comprehension
mistake when rendering a decision.6
review, and filtering the case reviewed filed
The Supreme Court fails to further elaborate
above
all
mentioned
justices
will
when
grounds
have
the
examining
for
same
a
case
by the convicts or their heir.7
There are at least four Supreme Court Circular Letters that stipulate case review, but all of
them fail to strictly define “novum”:
1. Circular Letter No. 8 of 2011 on Cases That Do Not Fulfill Cassation and Case
Review Requirements.
This circular does not discuss about case review for criminal cases Khusus perkara
pidana and only stipulate cassation procedures.
2. Circular Letter No. 10 of 2009 on Submission of Case Review Petition
This circular only affirms that case review petition for both criminal and civil cases for
more than once are unacceptable and are not in line with laws.
3. Circular Letter No. 1 of 2012 on Submission of Case Review Petition for
Criminal Cases.
This circular only states that a case review petition may only be submitted by the
convicts or their heirs, therefore petitions that are filed by the legal counsel without the
presence of the convict may not be continued.
4. Circular Letter No. 7 of 2014 on Submission of Case Review Petition for
Criminal Cases.
While explicitly states that this circular is a response to the Constitutional Court No.
34/PUU-XI/2013, it somehow reaffirms that a case review petition may only filed once,
as previously stipulated under Circular No. 10 of 2009.
The lack of clarity on the definition of
panel rejected new evidences in the form of
“novum” leads to a condition where judges
expert opinion regarding another case that
are
was rendered after the convict’s case.9
using
their
own
standards
when
examining a case review. For instance,
From these cases, it can be concluded that
under
15
“novum” as a prerequisite to submit a case
PK/Pid/1983, the panel rejected the case
review petition must be regulated strictly.
review petition, which was based on the
Each judge must refer to the same guide, to
convict’s interpretation of a notarial deed.
examine whether the new evidence can be
In
Court
accepted and has the possibility to alter the
refused to categorize the provision that
decision, if it was presented during the trial
stating
at lower court.
Supreme
February
the
conducted
Court Decision No.
2015,
medical
operation
Prawani, dr. Hendry Simanjuntak, and dr.
solution for the Supreme Court to respond
Hendy Siagian, was in line with the SOP
the
according to Honorary Council of Doctors
34/PUU-XI/2013. By doing this, the Supreme
Ethic
Etik
Court may show a better performance in
Kedokteran), because it is not an absolute
handling and filtering case review, instead of
(Majelis
Dewa
Ayu
measure
A clear definition on “novum” will also be a
fact.
dr.
Supreme
Sasiary
8
by
the
Kehormatan
Further, under the Supreme Court
Decision No. 157 PK.PID.SUS/2012, the
Constitutional
Court
Decision
No.
limiting on how many times a case review
can be filed.
The lack of clarity on the definition of “novum” leads to a condition where judges are using
their own standards when examining a case review
Notes
5
See Art. 263 (1), KUHAP.
1
6
See 263 (2), KUHAP.
See Constitutional Court Decision No. 34/PUUXI/2013, dated 6 Maret 2014.
7
2
See Supreme Court Decision No. 97
PK/Pid.Sus/2012
http://putusan.mahkamahagung.go.id/putusan/f
1c0c45538854adeed5d8dc073ab3e0e and
Kompas.com, “MA Bebaskan Sudjino Timan”,
http://lipsus.kompas.com/topikpilihanlist/2680/1
/MA.Bebaskan.Sudjiono.Timan.
3
See Hukumonline.com, “PK Oleh Jaksa Rusak
Tatanan Hukum Indonesia”,
http://www.hukumonline.com/berita/baca/hol22
482/pk-oleh-jaksa-rusak-tatanan-hukumindonesia.
4
See Kompas.com, “Mantan Hakim MK: Yang
Perlu Diperbaiki Pengaturan Novum, Bukan
Pembatasan PK”,
http://nasional.kompas.com/read/2015/01/05/1
6385381/Mantan.Hakim.MK.Yang.Perlu.Diperbai
ki.Pengaturan.Novum.Bukan.Pembatasan.PK
8
See Supreme Court Decision No. 97
PK/Pid.Sus/2012
http://putusan.mahkamahagung.go.id/putusan/
f1c0c45538854adeed5d8dc073ab3e0e and
Kompas.com, “MA Bebaskan Sudjino Timan”,
http://lipsus.kompas.com/topikpilihanlist/2680/
1/MA.Bebaskan.Sudjiono.Timan.
See ICJR, “Peninjauan Kembali Lahir Karena
Munculnya
Pengawasan
Penuntutan”,
‘Peradilan
di
Sesat’
Tingkat
dan
Minimnya
Penyidikan
dan
http://icjr.or.id/peninjauan-
9
See
http://putusan.mahkamahagung.go.id/putusan/
downloadpdf/bbaaf0f4371c18c0fc0f35a16d8e5d
98/pdf
kembali-lahir-karena-munculnya%E2%80%9Cperadilan-sesat-%E2%80%9Cdan-minimnya-pengawasan-di-tingkatpenyidikan-dan-penuntutan/
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License
Decisions that Change
Indonesia’s Criminal Justice System
Adi C. Bawono and Anggara
A. Change
Towards
Criminal
Justice
System Outside KUHAP
System, and when the Constitutional Court
revokes
and
interprets
some
of
the
provisions under those laws, it created a
The Indonesian Criminal Justice System is
significant impact to the protection of human
indeed
rights under the criminal justice system.
heavily
relied
on
the
Criminal
Procedural Law Code (KUHAP). However, it
does not necessarily mean that there is no
In the context of the Juvenile Justice Law,
other criminal justice system outside KUHAP.
the Constitutional Court decided to rise the
For
age
instance,
there
are
laws
that
of
criminal
responsibility,
from
incorporating criminal justice system into the
previously 8 years of age to 12 years of
provisions such as Law No. 3 of 1997 on
age.1 The change, which was stipulated
Juvenile Justice (“Juvenile Justice Law”),
under the Constitutional Court Decree No.
Law No. 11 of 2008 on Electronic Information
1/PUU-VIII/2010, brings a positive impact to
and Transaction (“IT Law”), and Law No.
reduce the number of children in conflict
4/PNPS/1963 on Securing Printed Materials
with the law. Another positive outcome from
With Content That May Harm Public Orders
this Decision is that the Juvenile Justice Law
(“1963 Law”).
has been repealed and replaced by Law No.
11 of 2012 on Juvenile Justice System.
The
above
mentioned
laws
are
strongly
related to the Indonesian Criminal Justice
About ICLaD
Indonesia Criminal Law Digest (ICLaD) is a new feature from Institute
for Criminal Justice Reform. ICLaD is presented by the ICJR as one of
the instrument and communication medium to inform the recent
development on criminal law and criminal justice system reforms in
Indonesia.
Significant change also shown for book censorship, which was under
the authority of the Attorney General—who may determine which
books that can be distributed. The Attorney General Office issued
Editor in Chief:
Ifdhal Kasim
Managing Editor
Attorney
General
Decree
No.
139-143/A/JA/12/2009,
dated
22
December 2009, which prohibits the distribution of five books that are
considered hampering public orders.
Anggara
Wahyudi Djafar
Editorial Board:
Adiani Viviana
Adi Condro Bawono
Anggara
Erasmus A.T. Napitupulu
Indriaswati D.
Saptaningrum
Robert Sidauruk
Sriyana
Supriyadi W. Eddyono
Syahrial M. Wiryawan
Wahyudi Djafar
Those
five
books
are
“Dalih
Pembunuhan
Massal
Gerakan
30
Wahyu Wagiman
September dan Kudeta Soeharto”, “Suara Gereja Bagi Umat Tertindas
Zainal Abidin
Penderitaan, Tetesan Darah dan Cucuran Air Mata Umat Tuhan di
Papua Barat Harus Diakhiri”, “Lekra Tak Membakar Buku Suara Senyap
Lebar Kebudayaan Harian Rakyat 1950-1965”, “Enam Jalan Menuju
Tuhan”, dan “Mengungkap Misteri Keberadaan Agama”.
2
On 13 October 2010, the Attorney General’s authority on book
censorhip finally revoked by the Constitutional Court, which states that
the authority to prohibit book distribution (book censorhip)—without
any trial involved—is the nature of an authoritarian rule, instead of rule
of law—as stipulated under Article 1 (3) of the 1945 Constitution.
Any act that is considered violating the law,
which
should undergo a trial instead of determined
government regulation on interception.
by
a
single
institution
without
mandated
the
issuance
of
a
any
proceeding.3 This decision affirms that the
In
prohibition
(book
stated that interception is a violation to the
censorhip) falls under Article 38 of KUHAP, in
right of privacy as a part of human rights,
which
which is limited to a certain extent. Further,
of
such
book
act
of
distribution
prohibition
must
be
approved by the court.
the
decision,
the
Consitutional
Court
the Constitutional Court asserted that such
limitation may only be stipulated by a law as
In terms of wiretapping or interception, the
mandated under Article 28J (2) of the 1945
IT Law states that the procedures for such
Constitution. Therefore, a specific law is
measure
necessary to stipulate the procedures on
will
government
be
stipulated
regulation.4
The
under
a
Ministry
of
interception
conducted
institution,
(“Kemenkominfo”),
cannot stipulate limitation on human rights.8
made
a
a
authorized
Communication and Information Technology
has
as
by
government
regulation
Government Regulation Draft on Interception
(“Interception Draft”), since May 2008. In
Even the Constitutional Court has mandated
20 Oktober 2009, Kemenkominfo submitted
the government and the House of realize a
the draft to the Ministry of Law and Human
law on interception, there is no clear effort
Rights.5
from both sides to actually discuss the issue.
This
nationwide
draft
instantly
controversy,
such
generated
as
the
Indonesia Corruption Watch who accused
that the government is trying to weaken the
Corruption
Eradication
Commission
(KPK)
with the Interception Draft.6
Responding to the Interception Draft, several
Jl. Cempaka No 4, Pasar Minggu,
Jakarta Selatan
citizens were filing a judicial review on Article
Jakarta – Indonesia 12530
31 (4) of the IT Law.7 Within a year after the
[email protected]
judicial review submission, the Constitution
@icjrid
Court
granted
the
judicial
review,
and
consequently revoking the reviewed article,
http://icjr.or.id
The
debate
regarding
cassation
against
acquittal—which is basically prohibited under
Article 244 of KUHAP—has been the center of the
spotlight for more than two decades.
B. KUHAP Changes via the Constitutional Court Justices
The debate regarding cassation against acquittal—which is basically prohibited under
Article 244 of KUHAP—has been the center of the spotlight for more than two decades.
The story began in 1983, when the prosecutor filed a cassation against the acquittal of
Natalegawa, who was indicted for corruption.9 It marked the first use of the term “fully
acquitted” (bebas murni) and “half acquitted” (bebas tidak murni) in a court decision.
In regards to what can be considered as “half acquitted” (bebas tidak murni), the
Supreme Court has drawn the line as follows:
(1) if the acquittal is based on a wrong interpretation to a crime in a indictment, and not
based on the condition where the crime cannot be proven; or (2) if the acquittal is
actually a free from all charges;or (3) the court has went beyond its jurisdiction”
The Constitutional Court finally ended the debate when rendering Decision MK No.
114/PUU-X/2012. Under the decision, the Constitutional Court declared that the phrase
“excluding acquittal” (“kecuali terhadap putusan bebas”) under Article 244 KUHAP,
contradicts the 1945 Constitution and does not have binding power. In other words, any
acquittal may be challenged by the prosecutor using the cassation mechanism.10
The Constitutional Court also brought changes on the provision regarding pretrial. On
this issue, KUHAP previously stated that decision on pretrial may not be appealed,
except for the pretrial on the termination of investigation or indictment (Article 79, 80,
and 81 of KUHAP). Appeal to this pretrial may be filed to the local court of appeal.11
However,
under
Decision
No.
65/PUU-
The Constitutional Court also asserted the
IX/2011 the Constitutional Court stated that
position
Article 83 (1) and (2) of KUHAP contradicts
governmental
Article 27 (1), 28D (1), and 28I (2) of the
organization
1945 Constitution. The Constitutional Court
No.98/PUU-X/2012,
declared that Article 83 of KUHAP does not
third
have binding power.12 Therefore, there is no
berkepentingan“) under Article 80 of KUHAP
further legal measure to challenge pretrial
is
decision,
Constitution
in
particular
regarding
the
termination of an investigation/indictment.13
of
victims
pretrial.
party
the
contradict
and
does
victims
Another significant change comes from the
governmental
Constitutional Court Decision No. 34/PUU-
organization”.16
or
and
Under
phrase
(“pihak
power—as long as it
“including
informant,
organization,
in
declared
and
mass
Decision
interested
ketiga
with
not
the
have
is not
yang
1945
binding
interpreted
informant,
organization,
non-
and
nonmass
XI/2013, which declares that Article 268 (3)
of KUHAP contradicts the 1945 Constitution.14
As stipulated under Article 80 of KUHAP, the
Before being revoked, Article 268 (3) of
request to examine the legality termination
KUHAP states that a case review may only be
of an investigation or indictment can be filed
submitted once.15 Due to the decision, a case
by the prosecutor or third party that has
review is no longer limited for one time only.
interest in the issue.17
The Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (ICJR), having established in 2007, is formed with
an exclusive mission to support collective actions in honoring the Rule of Law and realizing
criminal justice system and criminal law with strong human rights protection character.
null and void.19
C. Controversial Decisions
Even though the Constitutional Court has
rendered important and better decision for
The said decision came into spotlight at the
the criminal justice system, some of its
time when Susno Duadji refused to be
decisions are still criticized. One of those is
detained, due to the fact that the decision
Decision
which
from the Supreme Court did not incorporate
under
the order as mentioned above. This opinion
No.
interprets
the
3/PUU-XI/2013,
word
“immediately”
Article 18 (3) of KUHAP. The article states
also
affirmed
by
Yusril
that “copy of arrest warrant as mentioned
former Minister of Justice.20
Ihza
Mahendra,
under paragraph (1) must be given to his/her
family
immediately
after
the
arrest
is
conducted”.
Another controversy was the Decision No.
65/PUU-VIII/2010, which basically broadened
the definition of “witness” under KUHAP. The
The
Constitutional
Court
interprets
Decision declared Articles 1 (26)-(27), 65,
“immediately” as 7 days, which means that
116 (3)-(4), and 184 (1) of KUHAP null and
the copy of arrest warrant must be given no
void. As a consequence, “witness” is no
later than 7 days after the arrest. This
longer limited to the individuals that hear,
deadline is considered too long just to send a
see, and experience as defined under Article
copy of arrest warrant to the suspect’s
1 (26).21
family.18
The definition of “witness” (who hears, sees,
Another controversial decision is Decision No.
and experiences) that has been used for
69/PUU-X/2012, which reviewed Article 197
decades refers to “testimonium de auditu”,
(2) (k) of KUHAP. The reviewed article
which means that a testimony from someone
requires a decision to incorporate an order so
else will not have any value as evidence.22
that the defendant is detained or released,
Due to this decision, the Attorney General
which means that any decision on criminal
Office was considering to summon former
cases that are not incorporating suh order
President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and
will be null and void. The Constitutional Court
Megawati Soekarnoputri for the Sisminbakum
revoked this article, and declared the lack of
case.23
such order in any decision will not make it
Notes
1
See Hukumonline.com, “Batas Usia Anak Dapat
4
Art. 31 (4) of the IT Law.
5
See Hukumonline.com, “Kontroversi
Dipidana Naik”,
Penyadapan, Diatur Lewat UU atau PP”,
http://www.hukumonline.com/berita/baca/lt4d66
http://www.hukumonline.com/berita/baca/lt4b1c
9dccee142/batas-usia-anak-dapat-dipidana-naik.
e6211c60d/kontroversi-penyadapan-diatur-
See also Constitutional Court Decision No. 1/PUU-
lewat-uu-atau-pp
VIII/2010
http://www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id/putusan/P
6
utusan%20nomor%201.PUU.2010%20%20_Edit
Menkominfo di RPP Penyadapan”,
%20Panitera_.pdf
http://news.detik.com/read/2009/12/20/143947/
Detikcom, “ICW Kembali Kritik Peran
1263081/10/icw-kembali-kritik-peran2
See Hukumonline.com, “Koalisi LSM Layangkan
Somasi Terbuka untuk Kejaksaan”,
http://www.hukumonline.com/berita/baca/lt4b3c
46d857a6f/pelarangan-buku
3
menkominfo-di-rpp-penyadapan?nd771104bcj
7
Lihat Dasar Hukum Pembuatan RPP Penyadapan
Diuji ke MK
http://www.hukumonline.com/berita/baca/lt4b55
See Hukumonline.com, “Riwayat UU
Pengamanan Barang Cetakan Tamat“,
http://www.hukumonline.com/berita/baca/lt4cb5
87b8d6270/riwayat-uu-pengamanan-barangcetakan-tamat. See Constitutional Court Decision
No. 6-13-20/PUU-VIII/2010
http://www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id/Sinopsis/s
inopsis_Putusan%206-13-20-PUU-VIII-
a9abe4094/dasar-hukum-pembuatan-rpppenyadapan-diuji-ke-mk
8
See Constitutional Court Decision No. 5/PUU-
VIII/2010
http://www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id/putusan/P
utusan%20%205_PUU_VIII_2010%20_edit%20p
anitera_.pdf
2010%20_Kejaksaan,%20Pengamanan%20Thd%
20Brg.pdf
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License
9
See Hukumonline.com, “Kisah Contra Legem
Pasal 244 KUHAP”,
http://www.hukumonline.com/berita/baca/lt54a1
d82fe8974/kisah-icontra-legem-i-pasal-244kuhap
10
See Constitutional Court Decision No.
114/PUU-X/2012
http://www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id/putusan/p
utusan_sidang_114%20PUU%202012%20%20KUHAP%20%20telah%20ucap%2028%20Maret%202013.pd
f
11
Art. 83, KUHAP
12
See Constitutional Court Decision No. 65/PUUIX/2011 http://pantaukuhap.id/wpcontent/uploads/2014/12/putusan_sidang_65PUU-2011-TELAH-BACA-01-05-2012.pdf
13
See Bisnis.com, “Penyidik Tak Boleh Banding
Putusan Praperadilan, Kok Masih Dilanggar?”,
http://m.bisnis.com/quicknews/read/20130924/16/165034/penyidik-takboleh-banding-putusan-praperadilan-kok-masihdilanggar
18
See Constitutional Court Decision No. 3/PUUXI/2013 http://pantaukuhap.id/wpcontent/uploads/2014/12/putusan_sidang_1630_
3-PUU-2013-telahucap-30Jan2014.pdf; See also
ICJR, “Cara MK Menafsir Makna Pasal 18 KUHAP
Dikritik ICJR”, http://icjr.or.id/cara-mk-menafsirmakna-pasal-18-kuhap-dikritik-icjr/
19
See Constitutional Court Decision No. 69/PUUX/2012 http://pantaukuhap.id/wpcontent/uploads/2014/12/putusan_sidang_69PUU-2012-KUHAP-telah-baca-22-Nov-2012.pdf
20
See Kompas.com, “BIsakah Susno Duadji
Dieksekusi?“,
http://nasional.kompas.com/read/2013/04/27/20
580119/Sebenarnya.Bisakah.Susno.Duadji.Dieks
ekusi
21
See Constitutional Court Decision No. 65/PUU-
VIII/2010 http://pantaukuhap.id/wpcontent/uploads/2014/12/putusan_sidang_65PUU_TELAH_BACA.pdf
22
See Constitutional Court Decision No. 34/PUUXI/2013
http://www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id/putusan/p
utusan_sidang_1651_34%20PUU%202013telahucap-6Maret2014.pdf
See Hukumonline.com, “Perubahan Makna
Saksi Dalam Hukum Acara Pidana dan
Implikasinya Terhadap Sistem Peradilan Pidana”,
http://www.hukumonline.com/berita/baca/lt4e49
f3ff83f2a/perubahan-makna-saksi-dalam-hukumacara-pidana-dan-implikasinya-terhadap-sistemperadilan-pidana
15
23
14
Art. 268 (3), KUHAP
16
See Constitutional Court Decision No. 98/PUUX/2012
http://www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id/putusan/p
utusan_sidang_98%20PUU%202012%20KUHAP
%20%20telah%20ucap%2021%20Mei%202013.pdf
17
See Detikcom, “Kejaksaan Terus Kaji Putusan
MK atas Uji Materi Yusril”,
http://news.detik.com/read/2011/08/19/151549/
1706921/10/kejaksaan-terus-kaji-putusan-mkatas-uji-materi-yusril?9922032
Art. 80, KUHAP
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License
Advocacy Updates
Series of Press Release







ICJR issues several media releases related to rejection to limitation of Request for
Case Review due to contradiction with Indonesian Constitutional Court Ruling
ICJR issues several media releases related to rejection to death penalty execution
which is performed by Jokowi Administration
ICJR issues several media releases related to criminalization to a facebook user
and urge the Government of Indonesia to revise Law on Electronic Information
and Transaction
ICJR issues several media releases related to implementation of Qanun Jinayat in
Aceh and asks the government to review the existence of Qanun Jinayat
ICJR issues a media releases to push the government to increase the minimum
age of children to be able to be held accountable for criminal acts
ICJR issues a media releases to appreciate new interpretation of rape crime in
Indonesia Criminal Code by the District Court
ICJR issues several releases to push the establishment of a better provision on
pre-trial procedure law in criminal case
Advocacy on Criminal Law Reform




ICJR together with other NGOs reactivate the National Alliance for Indonesia
Criminal Code Reform (Aliansi Nasional Reformasi KUHP) and have met the
Ministry of Law and Human Rights related to the plan to revise the Indonesia
Criminal Code
Supported by the National Alliance for Indonesia Criminal Code Reform, ICJR
creates a website for advocacy on Indonesia Criminal Code Reform located at
reformasikuhp.org
ICJR together with the Coalition of Anti-Death Penalty held several discussions
with the media on rejection to death penalty.
ICJR together with other NGOs formulate advocacy efforts to revise Law on
Electronic Information and Transaction which criminalizes freedom of expression
Advocacy on Criminal Justice System Reform


ICJR together with Coalition of Indonesia Criminal Procedure Code (Komite
KuHAP) held a hearing with the Ministry of Law and Human Rights related to
discussion on Indonesia Criminal Procedure Code
ICJR creates a special portal to monitor discussion on Indonesia Criminal
Procedure Code at pantaukuhap.id
Litigation Support



ICJR wins a judicial review case on Law on Anti Money Laundering which is filed by
the former Chief Justice of Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court rejected
the judicial review application
ICJR together with the Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) submitted a judicial
review petition against Minister of Law and Human Rights Circular Letter related to
remission for corruptor
ICJR prepares a judicial review petition against the Supreme Court Circular Letter
which limits Request for Case Review in criminal cases
About ICJR
Reformation of law and criminal justice system towards a democratic direction is one of
the crucial issues faced by Indonesia during the current transition era. The Institute for
Criminal Justice Reform (ICJR), having established in 2007, commits to take the initiative
to support measures in realizing the proposed reformation. ICJR is formed with an
exclusive mission to support collective actions in honoring the Rule of Law and realizing
criminal justice system with strong human rights protection character.
Institute for Criminal Justice Reform
Jl. Cempaka No 4, Pasar Minggu, Jakarta Selatan
Jakarta – Indonesia 12530
[email protected]
@icjrid
http://icjr.or.id