Expert: Suspect Designation Remains Valid Without Prior Examination

Criminal law expert Henry Yosodiningrat has stated that designating a person as a suspect remains legally valid even if the individual has not been examined as a witness or a prospective suspect. The suspect designation is considered valid as long as investigators possess at least two valid pieces of evidence. Referring to the provisions of Law Number 20 of 2025 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), it only requires a minimum of two valid pieces of evidence as the basis for a suspect designation. “As long as prior to the designation there are at least two valid pieces of evidence and the evidence relevantly points to the designated person, then the suspect designation remains valid,” Henry said in a written statement on Saturday (18/7/2026). In the new KUHAP, the provisions regarding the requirements and procedures for suspect designation are contained in Article 90. The article does not include the examination of the prospective suspect as a preliminary requirement. Henry stressed that law enforcement officials and judges must not add procedural requirements not regulated in the law. “In criminal procedural law, the principles of legal certainty, lex scripta, and lex stricta apply. Therefore, one cannot add requirements for the annulment of a suspect designation that are not listed in the law,” he said. Henry also addressed Constitutional Court Decision Number 21/PUU-XII/2014, which is often used as a reference regarding the examination of prospective suspects. According to him, the decision reviewed provisions in Law Number 8 of 1981, which has now been revoked and replaced by the new KUHAP through Law Number 20 of 2025. “Constitutional Court Decision Number 21/PUU-XII/2014 cannot be automatically applied to Article 1 point 28 and Article 90 of the new KUHAP, because the norm being tested is no longer in effect,” he explained. He added that the obligation to examine a prospective suspect only exists in the court’s legal considerations and is not stated in the ruling’s dictum. Citing Constitutional Court Decision Number 150/PUU-XXIV/2026, which declared a petition for review of the new KUHAP provisions inadmissible because the petitioner lacked legal standing, he stated that to date there has been no Constitutional Court ruling declaring Article 1 point 28 or Article 90 of the new KUHAP unconstitutional for not requiring the examination of a prospective suspect. On the other hand, he emphasised that the two pieces of evidence forming the basis for a suspect designation must not be merely formal. According to him, the evidence must be obtained legally before the designation, relate to the same case, be relevant to the alleged act, and provide an objective basis pointing to the perpetrator. “What is tested in a pretrial hearing is not merely whether the prospective suspect has been examined, but whether at the time of designation there were at least two valid, relevant pieces of evidence that objectively point to the involvement of the designated person,” he asserted. Henry added that examining a suspect remains important in the investigation process for clarification and evidentiary purposes. However, according to him, the examination is not a constitutive requirement for the validity of a person’s designation as a suspect under the current KUHAP provisions.