Legal Literacy - This article discusses the importance of reforming the Criminal Procedure Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana) in Indonesia, which has been in force since 1981. Considering the complexity of social, economic, and technological problems that continue to develop, the Criminal Procedure Code needs to be updated to remain relevant and effective in the criminal justice system. By considering new dynamics and the need to adjust regulations related to arrest, detention, and pre-trial proceedings, this article reviews the urgency of reforming the Criminal Procedure Code to ensure that the law can provide speedy and fair justice for all parties.
Background          Â
Law Number 8 of 1981 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) is an effort by the Indonesian nation to codify rules to uphold criminal law materiel. The Criminal Procedure Code itself is a renewal of the previous rules, namely Herzien Inlandsch Reglement (HIR) which is considered to have provided better justice for the parties in the case.
However, at this time, the problems in the life of the Indonesian nation are increasingly diverse and complex. The Criminal Procedure Code, which has been in force for more than 3 decades, must adapt to the times so that the rules applied are relevant in overcoming current problems. The Criminal Procedure Code, which is a permanent legal product, can no longer keep up with dynamic societal developments. Moreover, the Law No. 1 of 2023 concerning the Criminal Code or known as the New Criminal Code, has now been ratified. For this reason, it is necessary to identify the problems and urgency of reforming the Criminal Procedure Code in upholding criminal law.
The current problems with the Criminal Procedure Code can occur due to the dynamics of developments in people's lives, especially from the influence of technology that affects the evidentiary system, so that the current Criminal Procedure Code arrangements are considered inadequate. The Criminal Procedure Code still requires implementing regulations regulated by state institutions, such as the police, prosecutors and courts.
Rules that are separated make inter-regulations pile up and are not integrated, which ultimately reduces the effectiveness of the Criminal Procedure Code. If the cause of the problem is traced, the current Criminal Procedure Code is still unable to adequately fulfill human rights justice in the practice of handling criminal cases. Handling criminal cases, which is the duty of law enforcement officials, still has the potential for violations in the stages of handling cases, such as determining suspects, arrests, detentions, requests for compensation, and so on. In addition, there are economic, political and technological developments which of course have implications for people's lives which affect the substance of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Problems and Urgency of Criminal Procedure Code Reform     Â
There are several issues within the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) that subsequently become shortcomings, such as in Article 19 of the KUHAP, which states, "The arrest as intended in Article 17 may be carried out for a maximum of 1 day." This means that after one day, the arrest is considered illegal. This can create problems, namely difficulties in the practice of arrest. Difficulties can be caused by geographical factors. For example, the arrest is carried out in remote areas or on isolated islands.
Moreover, limited access further hinders the arrest time. This can make it difficult for law enforcement to make an arrest within one day. Although there are alternatives related to this obstacle, the alternatives provided still contain difficulties. Therefore, this will certainly create obstacles in the implementation of arrests when in difficult conditions. Based on this, it is necessary to update the time limit for detention. Preferably, the article should include exceptions to the time limit for arrest in certain conditions, such as when the arrest is carried out in locations with difficult access due to geographical factors, so that an extension of the arrest time can be granted.
There is another issue regarding the ease of carrying out detention. Although the requirements for detention have been regulated in Article 21 of the KUHAP, in practice, law enforcement officials sometimes ignore the requirements contained in the article and prioritize elements of subjectivity in detention. The issue of detention is also related to the length of detention regulated in Articles 24-29 of the KUHAP. A suspect who has committed a criminal act can be detained for up to 400 days from the investigation level to the Supreme Court level. The long period of detention also signifies the judicial process as an inefficient effort to achieve justice and legal certainty.
Based on the above, efforts are needed to create a faster judicial process. In addition, the period of extension of detention can be shortened, for example, the period of extension of detention at the investigation level in the police force becomes 20 days. A faster period of detention can provide justice and legal certainty for perpetrators to immediately obtain the rights and obligations they are entitled to and reflect the principle of speedy trial.
The next problem relates to pre-trial proceedings. One of the pre-trial issues concerns the dismissal of pre-trial proceedings. This is stated in Article 82 paragraph (1) letter d of the KUHAP, which states that if the case proceeds, the examination is dismissed. This article has a detrimental impact on parties who feel that the actions taken by law enforcement officials against them were not carried out professionally or even with actions that violate the specified procedures. Furthermore, there is a legal vacuum in the KUHAP related to the determination of suspects, searches, and confiscations.
The aforementioned has led to differences in interpretation by judges, with some accepting and others rejecting it. This has resulted in the emergence of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 21/PUU-XII/2014, which has implications for the expansion of the scope of pre-trial proceedings to include provisions for the determination of suspects, searches, and confiscation within a pre-trial object. Therefore, the expansion of the content of Article 77 letter a of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) has become an urgency for the renewal of the KUHAP to include the expansion of pre-trial objects in the Draft Criminal Procedure Code Bill.
Currently, criminal cases are not only committed by individuals, but also by legal entities such as corporations. In general, the KUHAP has not regulated criminal proceedings conducted by corporations. The KUHAP needs to regulate general rules governing the provisions of criminal procedure law applicable to corporations. Currently, the law governing the procedural law aspects carried out by corporations is Article 20 of Law No. 31 of 1999. However, even though there are specific regulations, it is advisable to formulate a general rule as a foundation to avoid errors that still occur in practice, such as the investigation process and minutes in the name of individuals as administrators, but the indictment is made in the name of the corporation. This reflects the inconsistency of the judicial process in practice.
Comments (0)
Write a comment