Legal Literacy - Pre-trial is a control mechanism of the District Court over certain actions of law enforcement officials in the criminal process. Its essence is to examine whether the actions of“coercive measures”—such as arrest, detention, search, seizure, and other actions that limit a person's rights—have been carried out in accordance with applicable legal corridors and procedures.

Due to its rapid nature and direct connection to the protection of human rights, pre-trial is often used when someone feels that the actions of officials are carried out without a basis or correct procedure. However, a tactical question often arises that confuses the public and practitioners: can pre-trial be filed more than once for the same case?

Normative Vacuum and Dynamics in the Era of the 1981 Criminal Procedure Code

Under the old Criminal Procedure Code regime (Law No. 8 of 1981), there was no rule that prescriptively stated that pre-trial for certain coercive measures may only be filed once. This space becomes more complex when the Constitutional Court through Decision No. 21/PUU-XII/2014 expands the object of pre-trial—not only regarding arrest, detention, and termination of investigation/prosecution, but also including determination of suspects, searches, and seizures.

The expansion of the object explains why the phenomenon of repeated applications is starting to emerge. In the same criminal case, the applicant can test different objects at different times (for example: testing the validity of detention first, then later testing the determination of the suspect). On the other hand, this practice also opens up space for a “serial pre-trial” strategy which in some cases is used to delay the prosecution process and trial agenda.

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.

New Era

Strict Limitations in the Criminal Procedure Code of 2025

Responding to the confusion and practices of serial pre-trial maneuvers, the Criminal Procedure Code of 2025 (Law No. 20 of 2025)—which revokes Law No. 8 of 1981 and has been effective since January 2, 2026—brings significant material changes.

The Criminal Procedure Code of 2025 essentially codifies the restriction that a request to examine the validity of a specific coercive measure can only be filed once for the same matter. Consequently, a second request attacking the same coercive measure is essentially statutorily barred and is very likely to be rejected or deemed inadmissible due to repetitiveness.

When is a Second Pre-Trial Still Possible?

The restriction should not completely eliminate the right to defense. Therefore, a subsequent pre-trial in a criminal case may still be accepted as long as the object is truly different, or there are new circumstances that create a new dispute. For example:

  1. There is a new action/object
    Example: after the first pre-trial is completed, the investigator issues a letter of investigation commencement (sprindik) or a new letter designating a suspect . This new product of action can create a different object of pre-trial from the previous request.

  2. Different stages with new requests
    Both the practice under the old Criminal Procedure Code and the framework of the new Criminal Procedure Code maintain the idea that pre-trial at the investigation stage does not automatically preclude pre-trial at the prosecution stage, as long as it is filed with new request and does not repeat identical objects.

  3. A completely different issue
    For example, a foreclosure dispute over goods belonging to a third party unrelated to the crime, or other procedural issues that stand alone and are not identical to the previous application.

Conclusion

The presence of the Criminal Procedure Code of 2025 provides legal certainty to end the long debate regarding serial pre-trial motions. For justice seekers and advocates, pre-trial is no longer a “shortcut to try their luck repeatedly” on the same coercive measures—because the opportunity to sue is now, in principle, locked once.

However, the court doors remain open if law enforcement issues new actions or if there is a shift in the object of the dispute that is purely different. The key is simple: prove its novelty—not just resubmitting an old application with a changed “wrapper”.