DistantNews
Support us
🇮🇩 Indonesia /Crime & Justice

Roy Suryo Complainant Challenges Pretrial Rules at Constitutional Court

From CNN Indonesia · () Indonesian

Translated from Indonesian and summarized by DistantNews. Read the original for the full story.

At a glance

News Named sources In the courts
  • The Constitutional Court held a preliminary hearing on a challenge to Article 163(1)(e) of the 2025 Criminal Procedure Code.
  • The petitioner argues that the provision lacks a clear time limit for suspending examination of the main case while pretrial proceedings continue.
  • The judges gave the petitioner 14 days to revise the application after questioning the claimed constitutional harm and its compliance with court filing rules.

Indonesia’s Constitutional Court has begun examining a challenge to the country’s new Criminal Procedure Code over the rules governing pretrial proceedings.

The petition was filed by Maret Samuel Sueke, the complainant in a criminal case reported against Roy Suryo. His application, registered as case No. 316/PUU-XXIV/2026, challenges the absence of a clear time limit for suspending examination of the main case while a pretrial proceeding is under way.

Sueke’s lawyer, Emiral Rangga Trenggono, said the case was based on a police report filed in Bekasi on June 5, 2025. Four successive pretrial applications had been filed in the case, he said. As a result of the contested provision, examination of the main case involving the complainant’s rights could not proceed from July 2 to July 30, 2026.

The postponement of the examination of the main case experienced by the petitioner was not caused by negligence on the part of investigators, public prosecutors, or the court, but solely by the command of the provision, which imperatively prohibits examination of the main case while the pretrial examination has not been completed.

· Emiral Rangga TrenggonoSueke’s lawyer argued that the challenged rule caused the main case to be suspended.

“The postponement of the examination of the main case experienced by the petitioner was not caused by negligence on the part of investigators, public prosecutors, or the court, but solely by the command of the provision, which imperatively prohibits examination of the main case while the pretrial examination has not been completed,” Emiral said, as quoted by Antara.

Constitutional Court Justice Enny Nurbaningsih asked the petitioner to explain the claimed actual constitutional injury and identify which provisions conflict with the 1945 Constitution. Justice Arsul Sani said the application did not yet meet the requirements of Constitutional Court Regulation No. 7 of 2025 on procedures for judicial review. Enny gave the petitioner 14 days to correct the filing.

You have not referred to Constitutional Court Regulation No. 7 of 2025. If you look at examples of decisions, the section on the case background there would certainly be considered complete.

· Arsul SaniThe justice told the petitioner that the application did not meet procedural requirements.
About this summary

Originally published by CNN Indonesia in Indonesian. Translated, summarized, and contextualized automatically by DistantNews, with a note on how the source frames the story. Not individually reviewed before publishing. How this works.

More Stories

From Our Blog