Criminal Procedure in Indonesia | |
---|---|
Criminal Procedure Code | |
Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana (KUHAP) Number 8 of 1981 | |
Relevant Provisions | |
Chapter V - Arrest, Detention, Search of the Person, House Entry, Seizure and Examination of Documents Chapter VI - The Suspect and The Accused Chapter XVI - Examination at Trial Chapter XVII - Ordinary Legal Remedies Chapter XVIII - Extraordinary Legal Remedies Chapter XIV - Investigation Chapter XIX - The Execution of Judgements | |
Courts of Indonesia | |
General Courts of Justice Religious Courts Military Courts Administrative Courts Human Rights Courts | |
Number of Cases Received in 1997 by State | |
Indonesia is a civil law country with five major codes. Its criminal procedure code, the Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana ("KUHAP"), determines the procedures and rights of individuals at different stages of the trial process.
Before 1910, “Hukum Adat” or Adat laws applied in Indonesia. When the Dutch colonized Indonesia in 1910, they set up a civil law system that took precedence over the Adat laws. In terms of the criminal procedure, for example, the Dutch enacted two statutes to govern different parts of Indonesia. The Herziene Inlandsch/Indonesisch Reglement ("HIR") [1] applied to Jawa and Madura, while the Rechtsreglement Buitengewesten ("Rbg") applied to the rest of Indonesia. The Adat laws applied to the natives only if it did not clash with the Dutch statutory provisions. [2]
When the Japanese occupied Indonesia in March 1942, they applied their Japanese Martial Law. This superseded all existing laws in Indonesia at that time.
Today, Indonesia's legal system is based on Dutch Colonial Law, Adat Law and National Law. [3] [4]
After Indonesia gained independence in August 1945, it adopted the Dutch HIR as its code of criminal procedure. In 1981, Indonesia replaced HIR with the KUHAP. The KUHAP improved upon the HIR by adding adversarial features to the criminal procedure. However, the KUHAP does not sufficiently protect human rights and its safeguards are often ignored in practice because there are no penalties for failing to comply with the Act. [4] In response to dissatisfaction with the formal procedures in the Act, a working group drafted a new statue to replace the KUHAP in 2000. However, Indonesia has not adopted the working group's recommendations to date. [4]
The police must produce a warrant upon arrest if the suspect is not "caught in the act". [5] They must also send a copy of such warrant to the suspect's family. [6]
Suspects must be released within one day of arrest [7] unless the investigator, prosecutor, or judge orders a detention. Detention is limited to offences liable to imprisonment of 5 years or more, and crimes under Art 21(4)(b). [8] Suspects may be detained for a maximum of 60 days without judicial consent.
Investigators must inform the public prosecutor before they begin their investigations. [9] If the investigation is terminated due to insufficient evidence or if the event does not constitute an offence, investigators must inform the prosecutor and suspect. [10]
During investigation, investigators have the authority to summon witnesses for examination.
When the investigation is completed, investigators must promptly submit the dossier of the case to the public prosecutor. If the public prosecutor believes that the investigation is incomplete, he will return the dossier and order for a supplementary investigation. [11] The dossier is then resubmitted.
After examining the dossier of the case, the public prosecutor will determine if the case meets the requirements to be brought to court. If he decides to prosecute, he must prepare a Bill of Indictment and bring the action before an appropriate district court. [12] Summonses will then be issued to the suspect and witnesses, if any, to attend trial.
If the public prosecutor decides to cease prosecution, he must produce a written decision to be sent to suspect, investigator, and the judge. [13] Please refer to the appendix for more information about the structure of Indonesia's Public Prosecution Service.
Pre-trial proceedings are limited to examining whether the arrest and/or detention was legal and to decide whether the district court has the jurisdiction to try the case.
At the outset of trial, the prosecutor will read out the Bill of Indictment. The judge will then summon the accused and witnesses to give their testimonies, which will then be examined. The head judge will lead the examination at trial. The prosecutor and the legal counsel may question the witnesses through the head judge. [14]
If an accused refuses to answer a question, the head judge will suggest that he answer and thereafter continue the examination. [15]
After examination, the prosecutor will submit his charges before the accused submits his defence. The prosecutor may reply to the defences put up, provided that the accused has a right to reply. [16] The head judge will then consult other judges on the bench before he reaches a decision.
The court will acquit the accused if guilt has not been legally and convincingly proven or dismiss all charges if the acts do not constitute an offence. [17]
If the court concludes that the accused is guilty of committing the offence, it will impose a punishment. [18] The public prosecutor will then execute the judgment. [19]
Once a decision has been reached and read by the judge in a General Court of first instance, the aggrieved party may file an appeal to the relevant court of appeal within seven days. [20]
No appeal can be filed against a: [21]
There are three grounds for appealing to the High Court: [23]
After the High Court passes a judgment on an appeal, the aggrieved party can appeal to the Supreme Court as a matter of cassation. [24]
There are three grounds for appealing to the Supreme Court: [25]
Judgments are final and binding at the last appellate level. However a convicted person or his family may seek a final extraordinary remedy by submitting a request to the Supreme Court for reconsideration of the judgment, except when it is a judgment of acquittal or the dismissal of charges. [26] Such a request is not time-barred [27] and may only be made once. [28]
A request for reconsideration of a judgment may be made when: [29]
The role of judges in the Indonesian criminal justice system is to impose a proper punishment on offenders based on a sufficient means of legal proof. Judges are generally only involved in the trial proceedings.
When a judge receives a Bill of Indictment from the Public Prosecutor, he will determine a trial date and order the latter to summon the accused and witnesses to attend the trial. [30]
During the trial proceedings, the judge is obliged to ensure that the defendant or witness remains free to answer the questions posed. If the judge fails to do so, his decision will be annulled. [31]
At the end of the trial proceedings, the judge can only convict a person if he has at least two pieces of legal evidence supporting the conviction. [32] Based on the evidence presented, the judge can punish, acquit or dismiss the charges against the accused.
If the accused is convicted and he is sentenced to a punishment that deprives him of his liberty, the judge will assist the head judge to supervise the execution of the punishment. [33]
The Public Prosecution Service of Indonesia is the only agency that has state powers to prosecute offenders. As such, there is no private prosecution in the Indonesian criminal justice system.
Prosecutors are involved in the whole trial process, from the investigations, to trial proceedings and the execution of punishment. At the investigation stage, the prosecutor supervises the police's investigations. The prosecutor only personally investigates cases when there are special crimes, such as corruption. [34] Once the police complete investigations, they hand the evidence to the prosecutor. [11] If the evidence is satisfactory, [35] the prosecutor will prosecute the offender at an appropriate court. [36] He will prepare a Bill of Indictment for the judge [37] to begin the trial proceedings.
During the trial proceedings, the prosecutor must ensure that the defendant, witnesses and experts are all present. The prosecutor must also present all evidence concerning the crime. [38] In practice, the prosecutor usually presents three or more pieces of legal evidence to support the defendant's guilt.
After the judge has passed judgment on the case, the judge's clerk will send a copy of the execution of punishment to the prosecutor. The prosecutor will then execute the punishment. [39]
A suspect has a right to obtain legal assistance from one or more legal counsels at every stage of the examination. [40] At the start of the investigations, the police will inform the suspect of his right to receive legal assistance during examination at trial. [41]
If the suspect does not have legal assistance, he will receive free legal aid if he faces the death penalty, or imprisonment of fifteen years or more. The suspect will also receive free legal aid if he is destitute and faces imprisonment of five year or more. [42]
Once the suspect obtains legal assistance, the counsel has a right to contact him from the moment he is arrested or detained. The counsel also has a right to be present at, and listen to, interrogations. This ensures that the police do not carry out unfair interrogation techniques.
The court only admits five types of legal evidence. They are: [43]
In terms of the witness' testimony as a means of legal proof, the judge will compare a witness’ testimony against other witness testimonies or other means of proof to determine whether the testimony is true. In the process, he also considers all other factors that affect the witness’ credibility. [44] A witness usually makes a testimony under oath. However, a testimony not made under oath can still be admitted as supplemental legal evidence if it is consistent with a testimony made under oath. [45]
As for an indication as a means of legal proof, an indication is an act, event, or situation that is consistent with other facts. [46] It can only be obtained from the testimony of a witness or accused, or from a document.
To convict an accused, a judge must have at least two means of legal proof to support the charge. [32] This ensures that a suspect cannot be convicted merely because he confessed his guilt.
Indonesian courts only acc have a clear provision on the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence. Hence, the prosecution can present evidence that was obtained through torture, ill-treatment, or contrary to any provision in the KUHAP. Furthermore, there is no judicial avenue for an accused to seek redress if illegal evidence were presented at trial. This undermines the legal safeguards in the KUHAP. [47]
Counsel has a right to contact his client “at every moment.” However, this right is undermined because a 1983 Ministry of Justice regulation interprets the phrase to mean that the client has a right to communicate with his counsel ‘at every moment during office hours’. Based on this, police stations mysteriously close when lawyers visit their clients. This prevents the counsel from communicating with his client, undermining the suspect's right to counsel. [48]
The police can abuse its powers to detain a suspect by using threats of detention to pressure a suspect to confess that he is guilty. In addition, the KUHAP does not ensure that detainees are brought to court promptly. Under the KUHAP, a suspect can be detained for up to 60 days without judicial intervention. For example, if the police detains a suspect for 20 days under Art24(1), a prosecutor can extend this detention for another 40 days under Art 24(2). [49] Please refer to the appendix for more information about how long a suspect can be detained without judicial intervention.
Finally, it is unclear whether an accused has a right to remain silent during examination. Although an accused “shall not be burdened with the duty of giving evidence”, [50] Art 175 seems to undermine this right. Under Art 175, the head judge can suggest that the accused answers the question. The examination will continue after the head judge makes this suggestion. However, since there is a high respect for authority in Indonesia, the head judge's “suggestion” will probably persuade the accused to answer the question. This undermines the right to remain silent during examination. [51]
The adversarial system or adversary system or accusatorial system or accusatory system is a legal system used in the common law countries where two advocates represent their parties' case or position before an impartial person or group of people, usually a judge or jury, who attempt to determine the truth and pass judgment accordingly. It is in contrast to the inquisitorial system used in some civil law systems where a judge investigates the case.
A plea bargain, also known as a plea agreement or plea deal, is a legal arrangement in criminal law where the defendant agrees to plead guilty or no contest to a charge in exchange for concessions from the prosecutor. These concessions can include a reduction in the severity of the charges, the dismissal of some charges, or a more lenient sentencing recommendation. Plea bargaining serves as a mechanism to expedite the resolution of criminal cases, allowing both the prosecution and the defense to avoid the time, expense, and uncertainty of a trial. It is a prevalent practice in the United States, where it resolves the vast majority of criminal cases, and has been adopted in various forms in other legal systems worldwide.
A deposition in the law of the United States, or examination for discovery in the law of Canada, involves the taking of sworn, out-of-court oral testimony of a witness that may be reduced to a written transcript for later use in court or for discovery purposes. Depositions are commonly used in litigation in the United States and Canada. They are almost always conducted outside court by the lawyers themselves, with no judge present to supervise the examination.
Bail is a set of pre-trial restrictions that are imposed on a suspect to ensure that they will not hamper the judicial process. Court bail may be offered to secure the conditional release of a defendant with the promise to appear in court when required. In some countries, especially the United States, bail usually implies a bail bond, a deposit of money or some form of property to the court by the suspect in return for the release from pre-trial detention. If the suspect does not return to court, the bail is forfeited and the suspect may be charged with the crime of failure to appear. If the suspect returns to make all their required appearances, bail is returned after the trial is concluded.
An inquisitorial system is a legal system in which the court, or a part of the court, is actively involved in investigating the facts of the case. This is distinct from an adversarial system, in which the role of the court is primarily that of an impartial referee between the prosecution and the defense.
The right to silence is a legal principle which guarantees any individual the right to refuse to answer questions from law enforcement officers or court officials. It is a legal right recognized, explicitly or by convention, in many of the world's legal systems.
A prosecutor is a legal representative of the prosecution in states with either the adversarial system, which is adopted in common law, or inquisitorial system, which is adopted in civil law. The prosecution is the legal party responsible for presenting the case in a criminal trial against the defendant, an individual accused of breaking the law. Typically, the prosecutor represents the state or the government in the case brought against the accused person.
Discovery, in the law of common law jurisdictions, is a phase of pretrial procedure in a lawsuit in which each party, through the law of civil procedure, can obtain evidence from other parties by means of methods of discovery such as interrogatories, requests for production of documents, requests for admissions and depositions. Discovery can be obtained from nonparties using subpoenas. When a discovery request is objected to, the requesting party may seek the assistance of the court by filing a motion to compel discovery. Conversely, a party or nonparty resisting discovery can seek the assistance of the court by filing a motion for a protective order.
The Law of the Soviet Union was the law as it developed in the Soviet Union (USSR) following the October Revolution of 1917. Modified versions of the Soviet legal system operated in many Communist states following the Second World War—including Mongolia, the People's Republic of China, the Warsaw Pact countries of eastern Europe, Cuba and Vietnam.
An Article 32 hearing is a proceeding under the United States Uniform Code of Military Justice, similar to that of a preliminary hearing in civilian law. Its name is derived from UCMJ section VII Article 32, which mandates the hearing.
Within the criminal justice system of Japan, there exist three basic features that characterize its operations. First, the institutions—police, government prosecutors' offices, courts, and correctional organs—maintain close and cooperative relations with each other, consulting frequently on how best to accomplish the shared goals of limiting and controlling crime. Second, citizens are encouraged to assist in maintaining public order, and they participate extensively in crime prevention campaigns, apprehension of suspects, and offender rehabilitation programs. Finally, officials who administer criminal justice are allowed considerable discretion in dealing with offenders.
The judicial system of Israel consists of secular courts and religious courts. The law courts constitute a separate and independent unit of Israel's Ministry of Justice. The system is headed by the President of the Supreme Court and the Minister of Justice.
The legal system of South Korea is a civil law system that has its basis in the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. The Court Organization Act, which was passed into law on 26 September 1949, officially created a three-tiered, independent judicial system. The revised Constitution of 1987 codified judicial independence in Article 103, which states that, "Judges rule independently according to their conscience and in conformity with the Constitution and the law." The 1987 rewrite also established the Constitutional Court, the first time that South Korea had an active body for constitutional review.
The court of assizes is the trial court which tries the most serious crimes in the judicial system of Belgium. It is the highest Belgian court with criminal jurisdiction; as such, it is the only Belgian court that can sentence someone to life imprisonment. The courts of assizes are not permanent courts; a new court of assizes is assembled for each new trial. There is a court of assizes in each of the ten provinces of Belgium, as well as one in the arrondissement of Brussels-Capital which is not part of any province. Further below, an overview is provided of the eleven courts of assizes and their seats. They are the only courts in Belgium for which the provinces are used as territorial subdivisions. They are also the only courts in Belgium that hold jury trials. The jury acts as sole trier of fact, but decides on the penalty together with the judges. The trial by jury of certain crimes is laid down in article 150 of the Belgian Constitution. The Belgian courts of assizes have the same origin as their French namesakes.
An examining magistrate is a judge in an inquisitorial system of law who carries out pre-trial investigations into allegations of crime and in some cases makes a recommendation for prosecution. Also known as an investigating magistrate, inquisitorial magistrate, or investigating judge, the exact role and standing of examining magistrates varies by jurisdiction. Common duties and powers of the examining magistrate include overseeing ongoing criminal investigations, issuing search warrants, authorizing wiretaps, making decisions on pretrial detention, interrogating the accused person, questioning witnesses, examining evidence, as well as compiling a dossier of evidence in preparation for trial.
The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure contains the rules governing criminal procedure in every court in Italy. The Italian legal order adopted four codes since the Italian Unification. After the first two codes, in 1865 and 1913, the Fascist Government established in 1930 a new code adopting an inquisitorial system. In 1988 the Italian Republic adopted a new code, that could be considered to be somewhere in between the inquisitorial system and the adversarial system.
Criminal procedure in South Africa refers to the adjudication process of that country's criminal law. It forms part of procedural or adjectival law, and describes the means by which its substantive counterpart, South African criminal law, is applied. It has its basis mainly in English law.
French criminal procedure focuses on how individuals accused of crimes are dealt with in the French criminal justice system: how people are investigated, prosecuted, tried, and punished for an infraction defined in the penal code. These procedural issues are codified in the French code of criminal procedure. It is the procedural arm of French criminal law.
In French criminal law, the investigation phase in a criminal proceeding is the procedure during which an investigating judge gathers evidence on the commission of an offense and decides whether to refer the persons charged to the trial court.
Criminal procedure law, also referred to as formal criminal law or formal procedure law, has been uniformly regulated in Switzerland since the enactment of the Criminal Procedure Code on 1 January 2011. Prior to this, the Swiss legal system comprised 26 cantonal codes of criminal procedure, along with a federal Criminal Procedure Code that applied to specific offenses under federal jurisdiction. Additionally, separate Criminal Procedure Codes exist for military criminal law and juvenile criminal law; these have not been replaced by the federal Criminal Procedure Code.