Wednesday, 29 July 2026
MEDAN | INDATANEWS.COM - The first hearing of the pretrial motion (Praperadilan) challenging the legality of investigative actions, filed by Arjoni, a mother of two children, through her legal representatives from the Medan Legal Aid Institute (LBH Medan), was held on Tuesday, July 28, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. WIB at the Medan District Court Class IA Special.
The pretrial petition was registered under case number 80/Pid.Pra/2026/PN Mdn. During the first hearing, the petitioner was present through her legal representatives. However, the respondents, including the North Sumatra Police Chief and other relevant authorities, failed to appear before the court.As an organization focusing on law enforcement and human rights, LBH Medan viewed the absence as an indication of the North Sumatra Police's lack of willingness to comply with applicable court procedures.
LBH Medan Director Irvan Saputra, S.H., M.H., stated that the failure of the respondents to attend the first pretrial hearing demonstrated a lack of respect for the judicial process and violated the principle of Equality Before the Law, which emphasizes that everyone is equal before the law.According to Irvan, the respondents, as state officials and law enforcement authorities, are obligated to respect every legal process, especially when their institution itself has been formally summoned by a court.
"This obligation is in line with Article 27 Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, which states that all citizens are equal before the law and government and are obligated to uphold the law and government without exception," Irvan said in an official statement on Tuesday, July 28, 2026.Irvan explained that the pretrial petition was submitted to examine the legality of the termination of an investigation related to Police Report Number LP/B/909/V/2021/SPKT/Polda Sumatera Utara concerning an alleged embezzlement offense.
Due to the absence of the respondents, the panel of judges postponed the hearing and provided an opportunity for a second summons to be issued to the relevant parties.He added that, based on Article 82 Paragraph (1) of Indonesia's Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), a pretrial examination must be conducted promptly with all parties present so that the substance of the petition can be properly examined.
"Therefore, the absence of the respondents may disrupt the principle of a simple, speedy, and low-cost judicial process," Irvan stated.
Irvan explained that the pretrial petition originated from a case reported by the victim more than five years ago. During the investigation process, the victim had fulfilled her obligations by providing witnesses, documents, and expert testimony as requested by investigators and prosecutors.
According to LBH Medan, investigators had previously named Heri Rahman as a suspect on January 8, 2025. The suspect designation was later confirmed as lawful after a previous pretrial petition filed by the suspect was rejected through Decision Number 20/Pid.Pra/2025/PN Mdn dated April 29, 2025."However, without any further progress toward submitting the investigation file to the prosecutor's office (P-21), investigators instead issued a termination of the investigation," Irvan explained.
LBH Medan assessed that the termination of the investigation raised legal concerns because investigators had previously determined that there were at least two valid pieces of evidence supporting the suspect designation.According to LBH Medan, this situation reflects an inconsistency between the decision to name an individual as a suspect and the subsequent decision by investigators to terminate the investigation.
Furthermore, Irvan stated that the situation contradicts the experiences of many citizens involved in law enforcement processes. In various criminal cases, citizens who fail to attend investigators' summons without valid reasons may face legal consequences under applicable regulations."However, when the police themselves are officially summoned by a court, all respondents fail to appear. This situation raises serious questions regarding consistency in law enforcement and the police's commitment to the principle of equality before the law," he said.
In addition, LBH Medan demanded that the respondents resume the investigation process until the case file is declared complete or reaches P-21 status, allowing the case to proceed until a final and legally binding court decision is issued.
LBH Medan emphasized that the termination of the investigation in this case not only eliminates legal certainty for the victim but also contradicts the principles of professionalism, accountability, and human rights protection guaranteed under Article 28D Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution and Law Number 39 of 1999 concerning Human Rights.LBH Medan reminded that public trust in law enforcement institutions can only be built when all authorities and officials are subject to the same legal standards as ordinary citizens.
"There must be no special treatment for anyone, including law enforcement officers who must face legal proceedings themselves," Irvan said.Based on this situation, LBH Medan called on the respondents to attend the next pretrial hearing and respect the entire ongoing legal process. LBH Medan hopes that the proceedings will provide legal certainty for the victim in accordance with constitutional mandates and applicable laws. (IDNC)
REPORTER: Darmailawati | EDITOR: Fik Sagala
/home/u7391150/public_html/indatanews.com/theme/function.php on line 28