EduAsiaNews, Jakarta – HumasUPNVJ – Criminal law expert from the Jakarta-based National Development University “Veteran” Jakarta (UPNVJ), Dr. Beniharmoni Harefa, S.H., LL.M., testified as an expert witness in a judicial review of Law No. 20/2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) at the Constitutional Court in Jakarta on Thursday (Nov. 5, 2026).
During the hearing, Beniharmoni highlighted the potential for repeated pretrial motions to obstruct criminal proceedings. He stressed the need for clear legal provisions to ensure procedural certainty while safeguarding the rights of suspects.
Beniharmoni, who also serves as vice dean for academic affairs at UPNVJ’s Faculty of Law, was presented as an expert witness by the petitioner in Case No. 317/PUU-XXIV/2026. The petition challenges several provisions of the 2025 Criminal Procedure Code, particularly those concerning the scope of pretrial review, restrictions on filing applications and their implications for the continuation of substantive criminal proceedings.
In his testimony, Beniharmoni explained that pretrial review serves as a mechanism for overseeing the legality of actions taken by law enforcement authorities. However, he said, the mechanism must be subject to clear limitations to prevent legal uncertainty.
“Pretrial review is intended to examine the legality of law enforcement actions, not to delay proceedings. Its use must therefore be regulated to prevent uncertainty over a person’s legal status, particularly for suspects in detention who are entitled to know precisely when their cases will be heard and decided,” Beniharmoni said.
He argued that Article 160 paragraph (3) of the 2025 Criminal Procedure Code, which limits pretrial applications to once for the same matter, requires a clearer constitutional interpretation. The main issue, he said, lies in the absence of a clear definition of the actions or legal circumstances that qualify as “the same matter.”
This ambiguity could lead to differing interpretations in criminal justice practice. Each coercive measure, including the designation of a suspect, searches and seizures, could be treated as a separate legal object, potentially allowing pretrial applications to be filed in stages within a single case.
“This issue is important because each coercive measure could potentially be regarded as a separate object of review. As a result, suspects or their legal counsel could file successive applications challenging the designation of a suspect, seizures, searches and other actions,” Beniharmoni said.
He added that repeated pretrial applications were also linked to provisions requiring substantive proceedings to be suspended while pretrial review is underway. If each new application triggers another suspension, the mechanism could potentially be used to prolong the resolution of criminal cases.
Beniharmoni therefore emphasized that legal certainty involves more than clear written provisions. It also encompasses certainty regarding procedural stages, time limits and the legal consequences of each step in the process. Clearer regulations are needed to protect the right to seek pretrial review without undermining the effective resolution of criminal cases.
Two Experts Raise Concerns Over the Interpretation of Pretrial Review
The hearing also featured criminal law expert Hasrul Buamona, who testified in Case No. 316/PUU-XXIV/2026. Hasrul likewise questioned the ambiguity of the phrase “for the same matter” in Article 160 paragraph (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Hasrul argued that the phrase could be interpreted as referring to a single criminal incident. Such an interpretation, he said, would help prevent separate pretrial applications from being filed against different coercive measures arising from the same criminal incident and involving the same legal subject.
Both experts essentially underscored the importance of clear pretrial regulations to ensure that the mechanism for overseeing law enforcement actions does not create additional obstacles to the resolution of criminal cases.
The hearing formed part of a joint examination of three judicial review cases concerning the 2025 Criminal Procedure Code: Case No. 313/PUU-XXIV/2026, Case No. 316/PUU-XXIV/2026 and Case No. 317/PUU-XXIV/2026. The petitioner in Case No. 313/PUU-XXIV/2026 did not present any expert witnesses or witnesses at this hearing.
Case No. 313/PUU-XXIV/2026 challenges Article 62 paragraphs (5) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which govern the transfer of case files between investigators and public prosecutors. The petitioner argues that the provisions fail to establish sufficiently clear time limits and procedural requirements for handling cases.
Beniharmoni’s appearance as an expert witness before the Constitutional Court highlights the contribution of UPNVJ Faculty of Law academics to national legal discourse, particularly concerning the implementation of the new Criminal Procedure Code, which took effect on Jan. 2, 2026.
This academic contribution reflects UPNVJ’s commitment to encouraging its lecturers to provide expertise-based perspectives in support of the development of Indonesia’s legal system. Through their participation in constitutional proceedings, UPNVJ academics contribute scholarly insights to the development of criminal justice practices grounded in legal certainty, human rights protection and the principles of justice.(www.upnvj.ac.id)
