UPNVJ Public Relations – Criminal law expert from the “Veteran” National Development University Jakarta (UPNVJ), Dr. Beniharmoni Harefa, SH, LL.M., provided expert testimony in the judicial review hearing of Law Number 20 of 2025 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) at the Constitutional Court (MK), Jakarta, Thursday (11/5/2026). In the hearing, Beniharmoni highlighted the potential for repeated pretrial motions that could hinder the examination of criminal cases. He emphasized the importance of clear legal norms to ensure certainty in the judicial process while protecting the rights of suspects.

Beniharmoni, who also serves as the Deputy Dean for Academic Affairs at the UPNVJ Faculty of Law, was presented as an expert by the applicant in Case Number 317/PUU-XXIV/2026. The application questions several provisions of the 2025 Criminal Procedure Code, particularly regarding the scope of pretrial objects, limitations on filing applications, and their impact on the ongoing examination of the main case.

In his statement, Beniharmoni explained that pretrial proceedings are a mechanism to monitor the legality of law enforcement actions. However, this mechanism must be implemented with clear boundaries to avoid creating legal uncertainty.

"Pretrial proceedings aim to test the validity of law enforcement officers' actions, not to delay the examination of a case. Therefore, their use must be monitored to prevent legal uncertainty, especially for suspects who are currently detained and have the right to know exactly when their case will be examined and decided," Beniharmoni said.

According to him, the provisions of Article 160 paragraph (3) of the 2025 Criminal Procedure Code, which limits pretrial motions to one time for the same matter, still require a more stringent constitutional interpretation. The main problem lies in the unclear definition of actions or legal circumstances that can be categorized as "the same thing."

This ambiguity has the potential to lead to differing interpretations in criminal justice practice. Each form of coercive action, such as suspect determination, searches, and seizures, can be viewed as a standalone object, opening up the possibility of filing pretrial motions in stages within a single case.

"This issue is important because every form of coercive action has the potential to be viewed as a stand-alone object, so that the suspect or his attorney can submit a gradual application for suspect determination, seizure, search, and other actions," said Beniharmoni.

He explained that repeated pretrial motions also relate to the provision on the suspension of the main case examination during the pretrial process. If each new motion results in a further delay in the examination, this mechanism could potentially be exploited to prolong the criminal case resolution process.

Therefore, Beniharmoni emphasized that legal certainty is not only related to clear written regulations, but also encompasses certainty about the stages, timeframes, and legal consequences of each process. Firmer regulations are needed to ensure the right to file a pretrial motion remains protected without hindering the effective resolution of cases.

**Two Experts Highlight the Interpretation of Pretrial Objects**

In addition to Beniharmoni, the trial also featured criminal law expert Hasrul Buamona, who provided testimony for Case Number 316/PUU-XXIV/2026. Hasrul also questioned the ambiguity of the phrase “for the same thing” in Article 160 paragraph (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Hasrul believes that the phrase can be interpreted as referring to the same criminal incident. According to him, such an interpretation is necessary to avoid filing separate pretrial motions for various forms of coercive measures related to the same criminal incident and legal subject.

Both experts in principle highlighted the importance of clarity in pre-trial regulations so that the monitoring mechanism for law enforcement actions does not give rise to new problems in case resolution.

The trial was part of a combined examination of three cases challenging the 2025 Criminal Procedure Code, namely Cases 313/PUU-XXIV/2026, 316/PUU-XXIV/2026, and 317/PUU-XXIV/2026. In this trial, the applicant for Case 313/PUU-XXIV/2026 did not present any experts or witnesses.

Case Number 313/PUU-XXIV/2026 itself questions the provisions of Article 62 paragraph (5) and paragraph (6) of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the process of transferring case files between investigators and public prosecutors, which the applicant considers does not provide certainty regarding the limits of the case handling process.

Beniharmoni's presence as an expert in the Constitutional Court trial demonstrates the contribution of UPNVJ Faculty of Law academics in discussing national legal issues, particularly the implementation of the new Criminal Procedure Code which has been in effect since January 2, 2026.

These scientific contributions align with UPNVJ's role as a university that encourages the involvement of faculty in providing expertise-based thinking to support the development of the national legal system. Through academic participation in constitutional forums, UPNVJ also provides a scientific perspective for the development of criminal justice practices that uphold legal certainty, human rights protection, and the principles of justice.
 

Work Relatives

---------------------------------

Writer:   Disa Prihantini | Language Coordinator : F. Noor