INDOPOSCO.ID – A judicial review petition challenging Law No. 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code (KUHP) and Law No. 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) has officially begun at the Constitutional Court (MK).
On Friday (January 9, 2026), the Court held a preliminary hearing for Case No. 267/PUU-XXIII/2025. In the case, two private-sector employees, Lina and Sandra Paramita, are simultaneously contesting a number of provisions in the new KUHP and KUHAP.
During the panel hearing chaired by Chief Justice Suhartoyo at the MK Plenary Courtroom in Jakarta, the petitioners and their legal counsel outlined the provisions under review, namely Article 488 of the KUHP as well as Article 16 paragraph (1), Article 19 paragraph (1), Article 22 paragraph (1), and Article 23 paragraph (5) of the KUHAP.
Lina said she filed the petition after suffering what she described as a tangible constitutional loss. She claimed she had been criminalized by her former employer.
“I worked for approximately four years and always carried out my duties as instructed in good faith,” Lina said, holding back tears. As she became emotional, her legal counsel, Zico Simanjuntak, continued the explanation.
Zico explained that both of his clients, who worked as finance staff at two different companies in Jakarta, were accused of embezzlement, dismissed unilaterally, and reported to the West Jakarta Metro Police.
According to Zico, his clients were never properly questioned, interviewed, or given a fair opportunity to explain that they were not at fault. Nevertheless, the case was escalated to the investigation stage.
“The petitioners never acted on their own initiative. They had no authority to use the funds, let alone embezzle company money.
The petitioners were never interviewed by the police, yet the case was upgraded to the investigation stage. That is the basis of the petitioners’ legal standing,” he said.
On that basis, the petitioners filed a judicial review of several provisions with the Court.
One of the challenged articles is Article 488 of the KUHP, which regulates the criminal offense of embezzlement in an employment relationship and carries a maximum prison sentence of five years.
The petitioners argued that Article 488 only contains the formulation of the offense and the criminal sanction, without any additional provision regulating specific exceptions when the act is carried out under a lawful order from a superior.
Another legal counsel for the petitioners, Leon Maulana, said that within a hierarchical and asymmetric employment relationship, the absence of legal protection in the provision could create a fundamental imbalance.
“Subordinates are forced to undergo investigation and trial proceedings simply to prove that they acted under a superior’s orders and in good faith,” he said.
In addition, Leon said that Article 16 paragraph (1) of the KUHAP, which regulates investigative procedures, still contains imbalances that violate the principle of equality before the law.
He noted that the article does not clearly regulate the subject of interviews at the investigation stage. This condition, he said, could result in an imbalance between the complainant and the reported party, allowing investigations to be conducted unilaterally.
“Reports can potentially be used immediately as the basis for escalating a case to the investigation stage, while the reported party loses the initial opportunity to provide clarification and mitigating explanations,” he said, as quoted by Antara.
Therefore, the petitioners asked the Court to rule that Article 488 of the KUHP be supplemented with an additional paragraph stating:
“Any person who commits the act referred to in paragraph (1) shall not be punished, insofar as the act is carried out pursuant to a lawful official order from a competent superior.”
Meanwhile, Article 16 paragraph (1) of the KUHAP is also requested to be supplemented with an additional provision stating:
“In the event that an inquiry has indicated the existence of a party suspected as the reported party, investigators must first conduct clarification of the reported party before escalating the case to the investigation stage.”
The case is registered under number 267/PUU-XXIII/2025. The Court granted the petitioners two weeks to refine and complete their application. (aro)
