Constitutional Court Prohibits Public Prosecutor from Filing for Case Reviews of Criminal Cases

The Constitutional Court (“Court”) recently handed down Decision No. 33/PUU-XIV/2016 (“Decision”) on its review of Article 263 (1) of Law No. 8 of 1981 on Criminal Procedural Law (“KUHAP”).In essence, the Court reaffirms that only a convicted party or his/her heirs can file for a case review against any final and binding court decisions, as stipulated under Art. 263 (1) of the KUHAP. Thus, any case review petitions initiated by public prosecutors intended to challenge final and binding court decisions, as was commonly practiced before the Decision was issued, are deemed to be in direct contradiction with the 1945 Constitution.The Decision is of relevance to law practitioners and to the public in general.Details of the PetitionThe petition was submitted by Anna Boentaran (“Applicant”), the wife of Joko Soegiarto Tjandra. In 2000, Mr. Tjandra was charged with a criminal offence, however he was found not guilty by the District Court of South Jakarta in decision No. 156/Pid.B/2000/PN.Jak.Sel. This decision was later reaffirmed by the Supreme Court (Mahkamah Agung/“MA”) in cassation decision No. 1688K/Pid/2000, which declared that Mr. Tjandra was free from all criminal charges.In response to this cassation decision, the prosecutor filed a case-review application against the MA. This application was allowed by the MA and found Mr. Tjandra guilty of the criminal offence with which he was originally charged. Mr. Tjandra was thus sentenced to two years of imprisonment, received fines of IDR 15 billion, and was subject to an asset seizure amounting to IDR 500 billion. [1] Article 263 (1) of the KUHAP states that any case review can be filed by the convicted party or by his/her heirs, except for an acquittal. The prosecutor, however, has argued that the KUHAP does not expressly prohibit such applications from being filed by prosecutors.The Applicant claimed that the actions of the public prosecutor in filing for a case review were in contradiction with Article 263 (1) of the KUHAP, as such measures are only available to the convicted or his/her heirs and cannot be filed in order to challenge an acquittal. [2] Furthermore, the Applicant has also argued that a case review is a forum that was established in order to protect the interests of any convicted parties in line with due process of law, so as to prevent abuses of power or violations of human rights. Thus, a case review is a privilege possessed only by a convicted party. [3] Based on the above argument, the Applicant argued that any case review application filed by a public prosecutor constitutes an abuse of power and a violation of human rights, and is thus in direct contradiction with the 1945 Constitution.DecisionIn its Decision, the Court emphasized that a case review can only be established as an extraordinary legal measure which facilitates the interests of a convicted person or his/her heirs, who feel that they have been falsely convicted based on a final and binding court decisions. Based on this reasoning, a case review is a privilege held by a convicted person and cannot be used to challenge an acquittal. [4] The Court also cited Decision No. 16/PUU-VI/2008 , which states that public prosecutors are given sufficient time in which to prove the alleged crimes committed by of any accused person throughout the process of investigation, prosecution, and trial hearings, as well as the court decisions handed down by court of first instance, all the way up to the MA. Therefore, to only grant rights for a case review to the convicted person or his/her heirs is considered a just and fair concept. [5] Finally, the Court also elaborated upon four main elements of Article 263 (1) of the KUHAP, namely: [6]