Filing Requirements in Criminal Procedure Code Review: MK 213/PUU-XXIV/2026
The Constitutional Court of Indonesia (Mahkamah Konstitusi) pronounced its decision in case 213/PUU-XXIV/2026 on 16 July 2026, disposing of a petition for material review of Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2025 tentang Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana (Law 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code). Five individual petitioners — Anisya Dyah Ayu Rahmawati, Diva Devina Puri Tesalonika, Roreta Leandra, Putri Aisyah Maharani and Vira Angelina Indrawati — asked the Court to test Pasal 78 paragraphs (1), (2) and (4) together with Pasal 234 paragraph (1) of that law against the 1945 Constitution. The Court did not reach the constitutional substance of those provisions. It resolved the case on the filing conditions that govern how a review petition and its supporting evidence must be submitted.
Legal Reasoning
The Court began with its own authority. Citing Pasal 24C paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, Pasal 10 paragraph (1) letter a of Law 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court as last amended by Law 7 of 2020, and Pasal 29 paragraph (1) letter a of Law 48 of 2009 on Judicial Power, the Court restated that it adjudicates at first and last instance, with final effect, the review of statutes against the Constitution. Because the petition concerned the constitutionality of statutory norms — here Pasal 78 paragraphs (1), (2) and (4) and Pasal 234 paragraph (1) of Law 20 of 2025 — the Court held that it had authority to hear the matter.
The Court then set out the procedural record before considering anything further. The petition was dated 21 May 2026 and lodged online; it was registered as received on 11 June 2026 under Registration Deed 211/PUU/PAN.MK/AP3/06/2026. The filing checklist (Daftar Kelengkapan Pengajuan Permohonan Pemohon) recorded that the petitioners had submitted the petition in .pdf and .doc/.docx form and had lodged exhibits, but that those exhibits carried no meterai, the duty stamp required for documentary evidence.
A preliminary hearing followed on 23 June 2026, convened to hear the outline of the petition and to examine its completeness and clarity. Acting under Pasal 39 of the Constitutional Court Law and Pasal 36 paragraph (3) of Constitutional Court Regulation 7 of 2025 on Procedure in Statutory Review Cases (PMK 7/2025), the panel advised the petitioners on their petition and gave them until Monday, 6 July 2026 at 12.00 WIB to file a revised and completed petition, attaching exhibits bearing sufficient duty stamps. The petitioners lodged a revised petition dated 4 July 2026 online, received the same day at 20.24 WIB, again without a list of exhibits and without stamped exhibits. At the hearing of 6 July 2026 the Court put the omission to the petitioners, who confirmed it, and the panel therefore declined to validate any exhibits.
On that record the Court applied two provisions of PMK 7/2025. Pasal 10 paragraph (4) requires that a petition be accompanied by exhibits and by a list of exhibits supporting it. Pasal 12 paragraph (3) provides that an online filing must be accompanied by one set of exhibits delivered to the Court bearing the duty stamp prescribed by legislation. Because neither the original petition nor the revision satisfied those requirements, the Court stated that it had no doubt in finding that the petition failed the formal conditions for filing a statutory review. Having so found, the Court declined to consider the petition further and treated the remaining arguments as no longer relevant to the outcome.
The Ruling
The Court's conclusions were threefold: that it had authority to adjudicate the petition; that the petition did not meet the formal filing requirements; and that the petition would not be considered further. The operative order reads: "Menyatakan permohonan para Pemohon tidak dapat diterima" — the petitioners' petition is declared inadmissible. No provision of Law 20 of 2025 was reviewed on its merits, and the challenged articles remain in force.
The decision was taken in the Justices' Deliberation Meeting on Tuesday, 7 July 2026 by nine constitutional justices — Suhartoyo as chair and member, together with Saldi Isra, Enny Nurbaningsih, Ridwan Mansyur, Arsul Sani, Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh, M. Guntur Hamzah, Adies Kadir and Liliek Prisbawono Adi as members. It was pronounced in an open plenary session on Thursday, 16 July 2026, concluding at 14.02 WIB, with Aqmarina Rasika serving as substitute registrar and with the petitioners, the House of Representatives or its representative, and the President or a representative in attendance. The published decision records no dissenting opinion.
Read the full decision in the official record.
Methodology: This memo summarises the official decision text and is not legal advice; report corrections to contact@crpg.info.
Disclaimer
This article was AI-generated under an experimental legal-AI application. It may contain errors, inaccuracies, or hallucinations. The content is provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal advice or authoritative interpretation of regulations.
We accept no liability whatsoever for any decisions made based on this article. Readers are strongly advised to:
- Consult the official regulation text from government sources
- Seek professional legal counsel for specific matters
- Verify all information independently
This experimental AI application is designed to improve access to regulatory information, but accuracy cannot be guaranteed.