Adam Ilyas, Fachrizal Afandi, Indah Dwi Qurbani
This article analyses the constitutional and procedural implications of the absence of pre-trial authority to review decisions to terminate preliminary inquiries (penghentian penyelidikan) in Indonesia’s criminal justice system. While suspects are afforded robust due process guarantees through pre-trial mechanisms, victims lack a commensurate judicial forum to contest unilateral police decisions to terminate proceedings at the preliminary inquiry stage. This procedural asymmetry engenders a structural lacuna, conceptualised herein as an “injustice gap.” Employing a normative legal research method, the study examines the 1981 Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP 1981), the newly approved 2025 Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP 2025), relevant Constitutional Court decisions, and related judicial practices within the theoretical frameworks of John Rawls’s theory of justice and Lon L. Fuller’s concept of the internal morality of law. The analysis demonstrates that the current asymmetrical distribution of protections between suspects and victims is incompatible with the constitutional principles of equality before the law, legal certainty, and the right to an effective remedy. Accordingly, the article proposes three reform pathways: (1) explicitly regulating the termination of preliminary inquiries as an object of pre-trial review; (2) constitutional reinterpretation by the Constitutional Court; or (3) establishing a Preliminary Examining Judge (Hakim Pemeriksa Pendahuluan, HPP) to reconstruct pre-trial proceedings as an effective remedy for victims. © 2025 by Jurnal Konstitusi.
Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Brawijaya, Jakarta, Indonesia
