{"id":44489,"date":"2026-09-16T10:56:43","date_gmt":"2026-09-16T03:56:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/law.ugm.ac.id\/?p=44489"},"modified":"2026-09-16T10:56:43","modified_gmt":"2026-09-16T03:56:43","slug":"lgs-fh-ugm-ajukan-amicus-curiae-ke-pn-jakarta-selatan-persoalkan-penghentian-penyidikan-perkara-kekerasan-seksual","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/law.ugm.ac.id\/en\/lgs-fh-ugm-ajukan-amicus-curiae-ke-pn-jakarta-selatan-persoalkan-penghentian-penyidikan-perkara-kekerasan-seksual\/","title":{"rendered":"LGS FH UGM Submits Amicus Curiae to South Jakarta District Court, Raises Concerns over Termination of Sexual Violence Investigation"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Law, Gender, and Society Study Center of the Faculty of Law, Universitas Gadjah Mada (LGS FH UGM), submitted a legal opinion as an amicus curiae to the South Jakarta District Court on Monday (16\/3\/2026). The legal opinion was submitted in pretrial proceeding Number 25\/Pid.Pra\/2026\/PN JKT.SEL., which examines the legality of the termination of an investigation into an alleged sexual violence offense.<\/span><\/p>\n

The case originated from a report filed by R, a survivor of sexual violence, with the Jakarta Metropolitan Regional Police on 12 January 2024. The report concerned an alleged sexual violence offense allegedly committed by an individual identified by the initial E, who at the time served as the rector of a university in Jakarta. After waiting for more than two years for legal certainty, investigators issued a decision terminating the investigation on 15 January 2026 on the grounds of \u201cdemi hukum\u201d (\u201cby operation of law\u201d). The termination subsequently became the subject of the pretrial proceeding.<\/span><\/p>\n

In the six-page document, LGS FH UGM emphasized its position as an independent party with no direct interest in the case. The legal opinion adopts a socio-legal framework, viewing law not merely as a body of normative texts, but also as a social institution that interacts with power relations, social structures, and survivors\u2019 experiences within the criminal justice system.<\/span><\/p>\n

The first argument addresses the legal basis for terminating the investigation. Referring to the criminal procedural law doctrine articulated by Yahya Harahap, termination of an investigation on the grounds of \u201cdemi hukum\u201d may only be pursued under limited circumstances, namely ne bis in idem, the death of the suspect, expiration of the statute of limitations, or settlement through a mechanism recognized by law. Similar limitations are reflected in the Regulation of the Head of the Criminal Investigation Agency of the Indonesian National Police Number 1 of 2022. The amici noted that, based on the termination decision issued by investigators, the case continued to be treated as a criminal offense and was not terminated on the grounds of insufficient evidence.<\/span><\/p>\n

The second argument concerns an inconsistency in the legal basis for the termination. The termination decision refers to \u201cdemi hukum\u201d while simultaneously linking the decision to a restorative justice mechanism. Article 83 of Law Number 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code requires restorative justice at the investigation stage to be agreed upon before investigators and documented through the signing of a Case Settlement Agreement by the perpetrator, survivor, and investigator. According to the amici, the Applicant never agreed to a settlement through such a mechanism. Furthermore, Article 23 of Law Number 12 of 2022 on Sexual Violence Crimes stipulates that sexual violence cases may not be resolved outside the judicial process, except where the perpetrator is a child. The amici argue that this situation creates normative uncertainty and raises concerns regarding the principle of due process of law.<\/p>\n

The third argument examines the issue of power relations. The alleged sexual violence in this case occurred within a hierarchical relationship between an institutional leader and a staff member in a subordinate position. From a gender-justice perspective, formally expressed consent cannot always be regarded as free and equal when there is a significant imbalance of power. The amici analyze this pattern through the concept of quid pro quo sexual harassment, in which a person with authority exercises their position over a subordinate, with implications for the survivor\u2019s employment status, career opportunities, or job security. According to the amici, failure to consider this dimension may result in gender-biased legal conclusions, including in the selection of criminal provisions, such as relying on a provision that would be subject to the statute of limitations without considering Article 15 of the Sexual Violence Crimes Law, which provides for aggravated punishment for acts committed by a person who has a position of power, a relationship of trust, or who exploits the vulnerable position of the survivor.<\/p>\n

The fourth argument highlights the occurrence of secondary victimization through the legal process itself. Rather than receiving protection and recovery, the Applicant has faced an investigation termination whose legal basis remains unclear, as well as difficulties in obtaining explanations regarding the relevant documents and reasons for the termination. The amici consider this inconsistent with the right to case handling provided under Article 68(a) of the Sexual Violence Crimes Law, which guarantees survivors the right to obtain information concerning the entire process of handling their cases. The amici also highlight delay in justice, referring to the prolonged investigation process that lasted for more than two years before ultimately ending with the issuance of the termination decision.<\/p>\n

The amici further place the case within a broader legal policy framework. The Sexual Violence Crimes Law remains applicable as a special criminal law despite the enactment of the new Criminal Code and the new Criminal Procedure Code. At the sectoral level, Regulation of the Minister of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology Number 30 of 2021, subsequently replaced by Regulation Number 55 of 2024, as well as Regulation of the Minister of Manpower Number 88 of 2023, both affirm that the resolution of sexual violence in universities or workplaces does not eliminate the criminal justice process.<\/span><\/p>\n

Referring to Article 80 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the amici emphasize that pretrial proceedings serve as a form of horizontal oversight intended to uphold the law and protect human rights against arbitrary action. In its conclusion, LGS FH UGM stated that the decision of the Panel of Judges in this case will have implications for whether the criminal justice system can function as an instrument of protection for survivors of sexual violence or instead become a mechanism that reinforces impunity for perpetrators in positions of power.<\/span><\/p>\n

The amicus curiae was signed by ten academics and researchers, including Sri Wiyanti Eddyono, Arvie Johan, Diantika Rindam Floranti, Nabiyla Risfa Izzati, Rizky Septiana Widyaningtyas, Afifah Nur Hidayati, Zamrotul Miftakhus Laili, Bambang Ahmad Firdaus Sam, and Ernesto Aldo Yunior Maia from the Faculty of Law, Universitas Gadjah Mada, as well as Gilang Puji Andyansyah from the Faculty of Law, Universitas Slamet Riyadi Surakarta.<\/span><\/p>\n

The submission also contributes to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 5 on Gender Equality by strengthening the protection of women from sexual violence and promoting a legal system that is responsive to gender inequality and power relations. It also contributes to SDG 16 on Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions by advancing access to justice, protecting survivors\u2019 rights, and promoting transparent and accountable law enforcement. Through the submission of the amicus curiae, LGS FH UGM seeks to support a justice system that recognizes survivors\u2019 experiences and rights as an essential part of achieving meaningful justice.<\/p>\n

Author: Zamrotul Miftakhus Laili<\/span><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Pusat Kajian Law, Gender, and Society Fakultas Hukum Universitas Gadjah Mada (LGS FH UGM) mengajukan pandangan hukum sebagai sahabat pengadilan atau amicus curiae kepada Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Selatan, Senin (16\/3\/2026). Pandangan hukum tersebut disampaikan dalam perkara praperadilan Nomor 25\/Pid.Pra\/2026\/PN JKT.SEL. yang menguji keabsahan penghentian penyidikan atas dugaan tindak pidana kekerasan seksual. Perkara ini bermula dari […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":95,"featured_media":44522,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"default","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"set","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"categories":[28,218,214],"tags":[241,228,231,220],"class_list":["post-44489","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-berita","category-berita-sdgs","category-kabar-lgs","tag-law-ugm","tag-sdg-16-perdamaian-keadilan-dan-kelembagaan-yang-tangguh","tag-sdg-5-kesetaraan-gender","tag-sdgs"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.ugm.ac.id\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44489","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.ugm.ac.id\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.ugm.ac.id\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.ugm.ac.id\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/95"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.ugm.ac.id\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=44489"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/law.ugm.ac.id\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44489\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":44523,"href":"https:\/\/law.ugm.ac.id\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44489\/revisions\/44523"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.ugm.ac.id\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/44522"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.ugm.ac.id\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=44489"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.ugm.ac.id\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=44489"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.ugm.ac.id\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=44489"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}