Expert: Suspect Designation Remains Valid Without Prior Examination
Criminal law expert Henry Yosodiningrat has stated that naming someone as a suspect remains legally valid even if the individual has not yet been questioned as a witness or as a prospective suspect. The designation of a suspect is considered valid so 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), the law only requires a minimum of two valid pieces of evidence as the basis for naming a suspect.
“As long as, prior to the designation, there are at least two valid pieces of evidence and those pieces of evidence relevantly point towards the person being designated, then the naming of the suspect remains valid,” Henry said in a written statement on Saturday (18/7/2026).
In the new KUHAP, the requirements and procedures for naming a suspect are set out in Article 90. That article does not include the examination of a prospective suspect as a preliminary requirement. Henry stressed that law enforcement officials and judges must not add procedural requirements that are not provided for in the law.
“In criminal procedure law, the principles of legal certainty, lex scripta, and lex stricta apply. Therefore, one must not add requirements for invalidating the naming of a suspect that are not stated in the law,” he said.
Henry also touched upon Constitutional Court Decision Number 21/PUU-XII/2014, which is frequently cited regarding the examination of prospective suspects. According to him, that ruling reviewed provisions of Law Number 8 of 1981, which has now been repealed and replaced by the new KUHAP through Law Number 20 of 2025.
“Constitutional Court Decision Number 21/PUU-XII/2014 cannot be applied automatically to Article 1 point 28 and Article 90 of the new KUHAP, because the norm under review is no longer in force,” he explained.
He added that the obligation to examine a prospective suspect appears only in the Court’s legal considerations and is not contained in the operative part of the ruling.
Citing Constitutional Court Decision Number 150/PUU-XXIV/2026, which stated that a petition for judicial review of the new KUHAP’s provisions was inadmissible because the petitioner lacked legal standing, he noted that to date there has been no Constitutional Court ruling declaring Article 1 point 28 or Article 90 of the new KUHAP unconstitutional for failing to require the examination of a prospective suspect.
On the other hand, he stressed that the two pieces of evidence underpinning the naming of a suspect must not be merely formal in nature. According to him, such evidence must be lawfully obtained before the suspect is designated, relate to the same case, be relevant to the alleged act, and provide an objective basis pointing towards the perpetrator.
“What is examined in a pre-trial hearing is not merely whether the prospective suspect has been questioned, but whether, at the time of the designation, there were at least two valid pieces of evidence available that were relevant and objectively pointed towards the involvement of the person designated,” he asserted.
Henry added that questioning a suspect remains important during the investigation process for the purposes of clarification and proof. However, he said, such questioning is not a constitutive requirement for the validity of naming someone as a suspect under the currently applicable provisions of the KUHAP.