Practice in the Field

How the Court Controls Repeated Pre-trials

Empirically, the court does not stand idly by in the face of repeated application loopholes. One of the control tools that is often used is reasoning ne bis in idem or res judicata—namely the application is declared inadmissible if it is resubmitted with the same object and reasons (substantively identical), especially if there is a final decision.

Several precedents that are often used as references include:

  1. Suspect Determination Case at the South Jakarta District Court
    (Decision No. 94/Pid.Pra/2023/PN JKT.SEL)
    The applicant filed a pre-trial for the determination of a suspect, even though he admitted that he had previously filed a pre-trial application for the same determination of a suspect. The judge considered the new application to repeat the same points and declared it as ne bis in idem, so the application was declared Inadmissible (Niet Ontvankelijke Verklaard).

  2. Tax Crime Case in Sidoarjo
    (Decision No. 4/Pid.Pra/2023/PN.Sda)
    In a tax case, the pre-trial application was resubmitted with the same core dispute after a previous pre-trial decision. The court treated the application as ne bis in idem by emphasizing the principle of finality of pre-trial decisions.

  3. e-KTP Corruption Case (2017) and the Concept of “Lapse”
    Besides the issue of ne bis in idem, another important obstacle is timing. In one of the subsequent pre-trial efforts in the e-KTP case at the South Jakarta District Court, the petition was declared lapsed because the first hearing of the main case had commenced. This pattern is in line with Constitutional Court Decision No. 102/PUU-XIII/2015 which affirms that pre-trial becomes void when the first hearing of the main case has been held.