{
    "success": true,
    "data": {
        "id": 1679794,
        "msgid": "constitutional-court-judge-notes-that-provisions-struck-down-have-been-revived-in-new-criminal-code-1776261056",
        "date": "2026-04-15 19:36:56",
        "title": "Constitutional Court Judge Notes That Provisions Struck Down Have Been Revived in New Criminal Code",
        "author": "Singgih Wiryono",
        "source": "KOMPAS",
        "tags": "",
        "topic": "Legal",
        "summary": "Constitutional Court Justice Saldi Isra has questioned the revival of previously invalidated provisions in Indonesia's new Criminal Code (KUHP) Number 1 of 2023, despite their earlier declaration as unconstitutional by the court. During hearings on constitutional challenges to the new KUHP, Saldi highlighted specific articles like 237(b) and (c), which mirror the substance of the now-defunct Article 69(c) of Law Number 24 of 2009, urging lawmakers and the government to explain their reintroduction. This development underscores concerns over the integrity of legislative processes in updating colonial-era criminal laws, potentially affecting the code's constitutionality.",
        "content": "<p>JAKARTA - Constitutional Court Justice Saldi Isra has questioned the\nrevival of provisions in the Criminal Code (KUHP) Number 1 of 2023, even\nthough those provisions had previously been struck down by the\nConstitutional Court. This was stated by Saldi Isra during hearings on\nsix cases challenging the constitutionality of the new KUHP, held on\nMonday (13\/4\/2026). In the hearing agenda focused on listening to\nexplanations from the House of Representatives (DPR), Saldi openly noted\nthat certain provisions had been revived by the lawmakers. \u201cFor example,\nthis relates to several petitions where, in fact, parts requested by the\npetitioners here were already decided by the Court previously, but have\nbeen revived by the lawmakers,\u201d he said. Arsul Sani stated that Articles\n237(b) and (c) in the KUHP have the same substance as Article 69(c) of\nLaw Number 24 of 2009. This article had been declared unconstitutional\nby the Constitutional Court, yet it reappears in the new KUHP under\ndifferent articles. \u201cSo, in the Constitutional Court decision, Article\n69(c) of Law 24\/2009 was indeed declared unconstitutional. Now, I\nrequest an explanation from the President (government) as to why this\nthen appears in Article 237(c)?\u201d Arsul said during the same hearing.\nSaldi Isra also drew attention to the matter and asked the lawmakers to\nprovide an explanation in the hearing as to why a norm that had been\nruled unconstitutional by the MK is appearing again. \u201cNow, the way\nforward, Mr Rudianto (DPR representative) and colleagues from the\ngovernment or president, please provide us with the actual record\n(explanation of the re-formation of the article) in real terms,\u201d said\nSaldi. The Constitutional Court requested this because it is clear that\nthe new KUHP was formed to update the previous criminal law, which was\nconsidered a product of the colonial era.<\/p>",
        "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/constitutional-court-judge-notes-that-provisions-struck-down-have-been-revived-in-new-criminal-code-1776261056",
        "image": ""
    },
    "sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
    "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}