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

CCaassee RReevviieeww aanndd tthhee LLaacckk ooff

CCrriimmiinnaall PPrroocceedduurraall LLaaww RReeffoorrmm

RRoobbeerrtt FF.. SSiiddaauurruukk

Even though the mechanism of

extraordinary legal remedy (upaya hukum

luar biasa) in the form of case review

(peninjauan kembali) has been used since

decades ago, the debates and controversies

surrounding it are inevitable. The lack of

clarity for case review submission

procedures, and requirements to file one

(legal ground), are some of the issues that

need to be addressed by the House of

Representatives (House) when revising the

Criminal Procedural Law (KUHAP).

Trying to fill the hole left by the lawmakers,

the Supreme Court decided to conduct its

own way. The result, however, does not

give any clear solution and consequently

many case review petitions are piled up at

the Supreme Court.

Another problem came when the

Constitutional Court rendered Decision No.

34/PUU-XI/2013, stating that the one-time

limitation of case review submission under

Article 268 (3) of KUHAP is

unconstitutional.1

Some of the “classic problems” regarding

case review are yet to be responded by the

Supreme Court. For instance, a case review

from the wife of Sudjiono Timan

(sentenced 15 years of imprisonment, and

a fugitive), was allowed by the Supreme

Court in 2013.2 In addition, other problems

such as case review submitted by the

prosecutor, including case review against

acquittal (putusan bebas).3

The root of these problems is actually the

lack of procedural law for submitting a case

review petition, including the definition of

“novum”. The Concept of case review itself

is based on criminal justice system that

sometimes lead to unfair trial (peradilan

sesat).4 In general, KUHAP stipulates that a

case review petition may be submitted by

the convict or his/her heir to the Supreme

Court, against a final and binding

decision—not including acquittal.5

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0

International License

Under the case review petition, the applicant

must elaborate three main issues: 1) there is

a new condition that if discovered during the

trial, the proceeding will lead to acquittal,

less sanction, or the indictment is rejected by

the court; 2) inconsistency between one

decision and another; and/or 3) judge’s

mistake when rendering a decision.6

The Supreme Court fails to further elaborate

the above mentioned grounds for

submitting a case review, either by issuing

a Supreme Court regulation nor a circular

letter. In fact, a further elaboration on

“novum” definition is necessary to assure

that all justices will have the same

comprehension when examining a case

review, and filtering the case reviewed filed

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

“novum” leads to a condition where judges

are using their own standards when

examining a case review. For instance,

under Supreme Court Decision No. 15

PK/Pid/1983, the panel rejected the case

review petition, which was based on the

convict’s interpretation of a notarial deed.

In February 2015, the Supreme Court

refused to categorize the provision that

stating the medical operation measure

conducted by dr. Dewa Ayu Sasiary

Prawani, dr. Hendry Simanjuntak, and dr.

Hendy Siagian, was in line with the SOP

according to Honorary Council of Doctors

Ethic (Majelis Kehormatan Etik

Kedokteran), because it is not an absolute

fact.8 Further, under the Supreme Court

Decision No. 157 PK.PID.SUS/2012, the

panel rejected new evidences in the form of

expert opinion regarding another case that

was rendered after the convict’s case.9

From these cases, it can be concluded that

“novum” as a prerequisite to submit a case

review petition must be regulated strictly.

Each judge must refer to the same guide, to

examine whether the new evidence can be

accepted and has the possibility to alter the

decision, if it was presented during the trial

at lower court.

A clear definition on “novum” will also be a

solution for the Supreme Court to respond

the Constitutional Court Decision No.

34/PUU-XI/2013. By doing this, the Supreme

Court may show a better performance in

handling and filtering case review, instead of

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

1See Constitutional Court Decision No. 34/PUU-

XI/2013, dated 6 Maret 2014.

2See 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.

3See Hukumonline.com, “PK Oleh Jaksa Rusak

Tatanan Hukum Indonesia”,

http://www.hukumonline.com/berita/baca/hol22

482/pk-oleh-jaksa-rusak-tatanan-hukum-

indonesia.

4See ICJR, “Peninjauan Kembali Lahir Karena

Munculnya ‘Peradilan Sesat’ dan Minimnya

Pengawasan di Tingkat Penyidikan dan

Penuntutan”, http://icjr.or.id/peninjauan-

kembali-lahir-karena-munculnya-

%E2%80%9Cperadilan-sesat-%E2%80%9C-

dan-minimnya-pengawasan-di-tingkat-

penyidikan-dan-penuntutan/

5See Art. 263 (1), KUHAP.

6See 263 (2), KUHAP.

7See 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

8See 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.

9See

http://putusan.mahkamahagung.go.id/putusan/

downloadpdf/bbaaf0f4371c18c0fc0f35a16d8e5d

98/pdf

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0

International License

DDeecciissiioonnss tthhaatt CChhaannggee

IInnddoonneessiiaa’’ss CCrriimmiinnaall JJuussttiiccee SSyysstteemm

AAddii CC.. BBaawwoonnoo aanndd AAnnggggaarraa

A. Change Towards Criminal Justice

System Outside KUHAP

The Indonesian Criminal Justice System is

indeed heavily relied on the Criminal

Procedural Law Code (KUHAP). However, it

does not necessarily mean that there is no

other criminal justice system outside KUHAP.

For instance, there are laws that

incorporating criminal justice system into the

provisions such as Law No. 3 of 1997 on

Juvenile Justice (“Juvenile Justice Law”),

Law No. 11 of 2008 on Electronic Information

and Transaction (“IT Law”), and Law No.

4/PNPS/1963 on Securing Printed Materials

With Content That May Harm Public Orders

(“1963 Law”).

The above mentioned laws are strongly

related to the Indonesian Criminal Justice

System, and when the Constitutional Court

revokes and interprets some of the

provisions under those laws, it created a

significant impact to the protection of human

rights under the criminal justice system.

In the context of the Juvenile Justice Law,

the Constitutional Court decided to rise the

age of criminal responsibility, from

previously 8 years of age to 12 years of

age.1 The change, which was stipulated

under the Constitutional Court Decree No.

1/PUU-VIII/2010, brings a positive impact to

reduce the number of children in conflict

with the law. Another positive outcome from

this Decision is that the Juvenile Justice Law

has been repealed and replaced by Law No.

11 of 2012 on Juvenile Justice System.

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

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.

Those five books are “Dalih Pembunuhan Massal Gerakan 30

September dan Kudeta Soeharto”, “Suara Gereja Bagi Umat Tertindas

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.

Editor in Chief:

Ifdhal Kasim

Managing Editor

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

Wahyu Wagiman

Zainal Abidin

Any act that is considered violating the law,

should undergo a trial instead of determined

by a single institution without any

proceeding.3 This decision affirms that the

prohibition of book distribution (book

censorhip) falls under Article 38 of KUHAP, in

which such act of prohibition must be

approved by the court.

In terms of wiretapping or interception, the

IT Law states that the procedures for such

measure will be stipulated under a

government regulation.4 The Ministry of

Communication and Information Technology

(“Kemenkominfo”), has made a

Government Regulation Draft on Interception

(“Interception Draft”), since May 2008. In

20 Oktober 2009, Kemenkominfo submitted

the draft to the Ministry of Law and Human

Rights.5 This draft instantly generated

nationwide controversy, such 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

citizens were filing a judicial review on Article

31 (4) of the IT Law.7 Within a year after the

judicial review submission, the Constitution

Court granted the judicial review, and

consequently revoking the reviewed article,

which mandated the issuance of a

government regulation on interception.

In the decision, the Consitutional Court

stated that interception is a violation to the

right of privacy as a part of human rights,

which is limited to a certain extent. Further,

the Constitutional Court asserted that such

limitation may only be stipulated by a law as

mandated under Article 28J (2) of the 1945

Constitution. Therefore, a specific law is

necessary to stipulate the procedures on

interception conducted by authorized

institution, as a government regulation

cannot stipulate limitation on human rights.8

Even the Constitutional Court has mandated

the government and the House of realize a

law on interception, there is no clear effort

from both sides to actually discuss the issue.

Jl. Cempaka No 4, Pasar Minggu,

Jakarta Selatan

Jakarta – Indonesia 12530

infoicjr@icjr.or.id

@icjrid

http://icjr.or.id

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

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.

However, under Decision No. 65/PUU-

IX/2011 the Constitutional Court stated that

Article 83 (1) and (2) of KUHAP contradicts

Article 27 (1), 28D (1), and 28I (2) of the

1945 Constitution. The Constitutional Court

declared that Article 83 of KUHAP does not

have binding power.12 Therefore, there is no

further legal measure to challenge pretrial

decision, in particular regarding the

termination of an investigation/indictment.13

Another significant change comes from the

Constitutional Court Decision No. 34/PUU-

XI/2013, which declares that Article 268 (3)

of KUHAP contradicts the 1945 Constitution.14

Before being revoked, Article 268 (3) of

KUHAP states that a case review may only be

submitted once.15 Due to the decision, a case

review is no longer limited for one time only.

The Constitutional Court also asserted the

position of victims and informant, non-

governmental organization, and mass

organization in pretrial. Under Decision

No.98/PUU-X/2012, the phrase interested

third party (“pihak ketiga yang

berkepentingan“) under Article 80 of KUHAP

is declared contradict with the 1945

Constitution and does not have binding

power—as long as it is not interpreted

“including victims or informant, non-

governmental organization, and mass

organization”.16

As stipulated under Article 80 of KUHAP, the

request to examine the legality termination

of an investigation or indictment can be filed

by the prosecutor or third party that has

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.

C. Controversial Decisions

Even though the Constitutional Court has

rendered important and better decision for

the criminal justice system, some of its

decisions are still criticized. One of those is

Decision No. 3/PUU-XI/2013, which

interprets the word “immediately” under

Article 18 (3) of KUHAP. The article states

that “copy of arrest warrant as mentioned

under paragraph (1) must be given to his/her

family immediately after the arrest is

conducted”.

The Constitutional Court interprets

“immediately” as 7 days, which means that

the copy of arrest warrant must be given no

later than 7 days after the arrest. This

deadline is considered too long just to send a

copy of arrest warrant to the suspect’s

family.18

Another controversial decision is Decision No.

69/PUU-X/2012, which reviewed Article 197

(2) (k) of KUHAP. The reviewed article

requires a decision to incorporate an order so

that the defendant is detained or released,

which means that any decision on criminal

cases that are not incorporating suh order

will be null and void. The Constitutional Court

revoked this article, and declared the lack of

such order in any decision will not make it

null and void.19

The said decision came into spotlight at the

time when Susno Duadji refused to be

detained, due to the fact that the decision

from the Supreme Court did not incorporate

the order as mentioned above. This opinion

also affirmed by Yusril Ihza Mahendra,

former Minister of Justice.20

Another controversy was the Decision No.

65/PUU-VIII/2010, which basically broadened

the definition of “witness” under KUHAP. The

Decision declared Articles 1 (26)-(27), 65,

116 (3)-(4), and 184 (1) of KUHAP null and

void. As a consequence, “witness” is no

longer limited to the individuals that hear,

see, and experience as defined under Article

1 (26).21

The definition of “witness” (who hears, sees,

and experiences) that has been used for

decades refers to “testimonium de auditu”,

which means that a testimony from someone

else will not have any value as evidence.22

Due to this decision, the Attorney General

Office was considering to summon former

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and

Megawati Soekarnoputri for the Sisminbakum

case.23

Notes

1 See Hukumonline.com, “Batas Usia Anak Dapat

Dipidana Naik”,

http://www.hukumonline.com/berita/baca/lt4d66

9dccee142/batas-usia-anak-dapat-dipidana-naik.

See also Constitutional Court Decision No. 1/PUU-

VIII/2010

http://www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id/putusan/P

utusan%20nomor%201.PUU.2010%20%20_Edit

%20Panitera_.pdf

2 See Hukumonline.com, “Koalisi LSM Layangkan

Somasi Terbuka untuk Kejaksaan”,

http://www.hukumonline.com/berita/baca/lt4b3c

46d857a6f/pelarangan-buku

3 See Hukumonline.com, “Riwayat UU

Pengamanan Barang Cetakan Tamat“,

http://www.hukumonline.com/berita/baca/lt4cb5

87b8d6270/riwayat-uu-pengamanan-barang-

cetakan-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-

2010%20_Kejaksaan,%20Pengamanan%20Thd%

20Brg.pdf

4 Art. 31 (4) of the IT Law.

5 See Hukumonline.com, “Kontroversi

Penyadapan, Diatur Lewat UU atau PP”,

http://www.hukumonline.com/berita/baca/lt4b1c

e6211c60d/kontroversi-penyadapan-diatur-

lewat-uu-atau-pp

6 Detikcom, “ICW Kembali Kritik Peran

Menkominfo di RPP Penyadapan”,

http://news.detik.com/read/2009/12/20/143947/

1263081/10/icw-kembali-kritik-peran-

menkominfo-di-rpp-penyadapan?nd771104bcj

7 Lihat Dasar Hukum Pembuatan RPP Penyadapan

Diuji ke MK

http://www.hukumonline.com/berita/baca/lt4b55

a9abe4094/dasar-hukum-pembuatan-rpp-

penyadapan-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

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/lt54a1d82fe8974/kisah-icontra-legem-i-pasal-244-

kuhap 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 11Art. 83, KUHAP 12 See Constitutional Court Decision No. 65/PUU-

IX/2011 http://pantaukuhap.id/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/putusan_sidang_65-

PUU-2011-TELAH-BACA-01-05-2012.pdf 13 See Bisnis.com, “Penyidik Tak Boleh Banding

Putusan Praperadilan, Kok Masih Dilanggar?”, http://m.bisnis.com/quick-

news/read/20130924/16/165034/penyidik-tak-boleh-banding-putusan-praperadilan-kok-masih-dilanggar

14 See Constitutional Court Decision No. 34/PUU-

XI/2013 http://www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id/putusan/putusan_sidang_1651_34%20PUU%202013-

telahucap-6Maret2014.pdf 15 Art. 268 (3), KUHAP 16 See Constitutional Court Decision No. 98/PUU-X/2012 http://www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id/putusan/p

utusan_sidang_98%20PUU%202012%20KUHAP%20-

%20telah%20ucap%2021%20Mei%202013.pdf 17 Art. 80, KUHAP

18 See Constitutional Court Decision No. 3/PUU-XI/2013 http://pantaukuhap.id/wp-

content/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-menafsir-makna-pasal-18-kuhap-dikritik-icjr/

19 See Constitutional Court Decision No. 69/PUU-

X/2012 http://pantaukuhap.id/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/putusan_sidang_69-PUU-2012-KUHAP-telah-baca-22-Nov-2012.pdf

20 See Kompas.com, “BIsakah Susno Duadji

Dieksekusi?“, http://nasional.kompas.com/read/2013/04/27/20580119/Sebenarnya.Bisakah.Susno.Duadji.Dieks

ekusi

21 See Constitutional Court Decision No. 65/PUU-

VIII/2010 http://pantaukuhap.id/wp-

content/uploads/2014/12/putusan_sidang_65-

PUU_TELAH_BACA.pdf

22 See Hukumonline.com, “Perubahan Makna

Saksi Dalam Hukum Acara Pidana dan Implikasinya Terhadap Sistem Peradilan Pidana”,

http://www.hukumonline.com/berita/baca/lt4e49f3ff83f2a/perubahan-makna-saksi-dalam-hukum-acara-pidana-dan-implikasinya-terhadap-sistem-

peradilan-pidana 23 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-mk-atas-uji-materi-yusril?9922032

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0

International License

AAddvvooccaaccyy UUppddaatteess

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

infoicjr@icjr.or.id

@icjrid

http://icjr.or.id