THE REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT OF THE BLASPHEMY CASE-CRIMINAL CHARGE READING BY POLICE AND PROSECUTORS

This research aims to evaluate the police's request to postpone the criminal charge reading of the blasphemy case at the North Jakarta District Court, which was not based on Indonesia's positive law. The request to postpone a trial by the police without a legal basis could be considered a form of police intervention against the trial process, which has legal criminal consequences based on Article 3 Paragraph 2 and 3 of Law Number 48 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power. Meanwhile, the request for a two-week trial postponement by the public prosecutors due to their inability to complete the criminal indictment, as well as considering the request from the police, has created an impression that the public prosecutors have complied with the request of the police. It also injured public trust that demanded a fair and transparent law enforcement process.


INTRODUCTION
Basuki Tjahaja Purnama (BTP or well-known as Ahok) was caught in a legal case related to religious blasphemy, which sparked the reaction of Muslims from 2016 to 2017 (Permatasari, 2018). He was then serving as the Governor of the Special Capital Region of Jakarta (Daerah Khusus Ibukota/DKI Jakarta). Previously, Joko Widodo and BTP were respectively elected as Governor and Deputy Governor of the region. However, since Joko Widodo was elected as President, BTP has succeeded as Governor.
The blasphemy case occurred ahead of the DKI Jakarta gubernatorial election. The case was triggered by BTP's controversial statement at the Thousand Islands, North Jakarta, which alluded to Surah al-Maidah verse 31. He said, "So don't trust people. It could be that you actually don't want to vote for me. Lied to using Surah al-Maidah verse 51 and all kinds of things." These words

Kanun Jurnal Ilmu Hukum
The Request for Postponement of the Blashphemy Case Criminal Charge Reading by Police … Vol. 23, No. 1, (April, 2021), pp. 177-191. Mohd Andalusia Masri, Dahlan Ali, Darmawan 178 sparked a wave of protests by Muslims, was reported to the police, and BTP was eventually named a suspect. The case was tried at the North Jakarta District Court. The legal process was conducted simultaneously with the DKI Jakarta regional election process in which BTP was one of the candidates.
During the course of this case, the Jakarta Police Chief sent a letter to the Head of the North Jakarta District Court requesting a postponement of the criminal charge reading. The reason was the precarious security situation in DKI Jakarta ahead of the second stage of the gubernatorial election.
The trial process was approaching the election silence period and the polling day, and there were possibilities of mass mobilizations. In addition to the police request, the public prosecutors asked for a two-week trial delay to complete the criminal indictment. The trial was requested to be adjourned until the second stage of voting was completed.
Although eventually, the panel of judges delayed the trial, they initially expressed distrust to the prosecutors. They stated that it was unlikely for an established institution such as the Attorney General's Office not to have adequate facilities and human resources to complete the criminal indictment. The public reacted to this situation because it appeared that the police had intervened with the judicial process, and the Public Prosecution Service was unprofessional; thereby, the judge had no other option but to postpone the trial. The reasons for the request to adjourn the trial were doubtful for the panel of judges and court visitors and appeared absurd to all Indonesians who witnessed and followed the developments of the blasphemy trial.
Although several parties understood the police's concern and, thus, supported the proposal to delay the trial, it was considered an intervention to judicial independence. The support to adjourn the trial was feared to affect the quality of regional elections (BBC, 2017).
The request to postpone the trial triggered a lengthy discussion in the academic world.
Academics considered that court affairs and regional elections are two separate issues. A legal process should continue regardless of any reasons, including the matter of regional elections.  (Republika, 2017). The public prosecutors' situation that was unprepared to charge the defendant was also questioned. It was hardly possible to happen because public prosecutors have standardized professional procedures and timelines. Thus, the proposed reasons were not entirely reasonable. Although it is common to request delays, it is vital to provide rational reasons (Republika, 2017).
Based on the description above, it is interesting to analyze and understand the legal basis for the Police and the Public Prosecution Service to request a delay of the criminal charge reading in the blasphemy case at the North Jakarta District Court.
Studies on related issues have been previously conducted. Arsil (2018) described issues related to blasphemy. Maya Putri Sari discussed the delay of criminal charge reading due to a written request from the Jakarta Regional Police given the security considerations ahead of the second round of the DKI Jakarta regional election (Sari, 2017). Also, Imron (Imron, 2016) explained the duties and authorities of the judges, prosecutors, and police in handling corruption cases.

RESEARCH METHODS
It is a normative legal study based on applicable legal provisions and continued with related theories and juridical explanations related to Indonesia's positive law. The methodology was

Kanun Jurnal Ilmu Hukum
The Request for Postponement of the Blashphemy Case Criminal Charge Reading by Police … Vol. 23, No. 1, (April, 2021), pp. 177-191. Mohd Andalusia Masri, Dahlan Ali, Darmawan 180 employed to explain the research object, i.e., the request by the police to postpone the court decision in the case of religious blasphemy (Fajar & Achmad, 2017).

1) The Legal Basis for the Authority of the Police and the Public Prosecution Service
Article The first principle of law enforcement is legal certainty (rechtssicherheit). Certainty is a matter or condition that is definite, either provisions or stipulations. (Kansil, 2009). In essence, the law must be definite and fair. Definite as a code of conduct and fairness because the code of conduct must support an order considered reasonable. The law becomes functional only if it is just in its nature and applied with certainty. Thus, certainty and justice are not only morally demanded, but they factually characterize the law. In addition, the benefit (zweckmassigkeit), understanding the meaning of legal benefit and function, is basically evaluating the significant meaning of a legal rule.
As a modern concept, the law has a function to carry out a social change. In carrying out its functions, the law is consistently challenged with the established societal values and behavioural patterns (Mulyani, 2010). The last principle is justice (gerechttigkeit). The measure of justice, as mentioned above, covers the ideal area as it discusses the issue of justice, meaning that it falls into a 181 philosophical level requiring deep reflection to its deepest nature. Even Hans Kelsen emphasized on the philosophy of Plato's law that justice is based on the knowledge of a good deed. Knowledge of good things is fundamentally an out-of-the-world issue; therefore, justice is included in philosophical studies (Nasution, 2016). There must be harmony between the three principles; each must be given proportionate and balanced attention. However, manifesting harmony between the principles is not a simple task in practice.
When the Indonesian National Police was repositioned as an independent institution, it was In the criminal justice system, the National Police acts as a gatekeeper. This term is based on the understanding that criminal proceedings begin with police actions, starting from the examination, investigation, and the P-21 stage, i.e., the stage that requires transfer of files, suspects, and evidence to the Public Prosecution Service. The requistoir in a trial proceeding is a reference to determine the prosecutor's standpoint towards the facts in a criminal case. Thus, it has a vital role in the criminal prosecution process (Syahril, 2014).
In formal juridical terms, the public prosecutor has the authority to submit an indictment as a follow-up to the lawsuit that was delivered earlier at the trial. Regarding the request for trial adjournment by the public prosecutors in the BTP case, the author argues that the request is legally grounded. The criminal charge submission is the absolute authority of the public prosecutor; therefore, if the public prosecutor has not completed the criminal indictment due to justifiable reasons, they have the authority to request a trial postponement.
However, the police's request to delay the blasphemy case trial has no legal basis and was not their authority. The request for trial postponement was based on the interpretation of Article 13a  Darmawan Vol. 23, No. 1, (April, 2021), pp. 177-191 185 and Article 14 Paragraph 1b and 1e of the Police Law, which regulates police duties. Meanwhile, the prosecutors' action requesting a postponement of the trial was based on Article 182 Paragraph 1a of the Criminal Procedure Code that authorizes public prosecutors to submit criminal charges.

Police and Prosecutors at the North Jakarta District Court
One of the principles of a state of law is the assurance of an independent judicial power to Apart from the matters above, a trial delay can only be carried out for reasonable and accountable explanations. Trial adjournment without transparent and accountable reasons is contrary to the processual principle that underlies a good criminal justice system. An undue delay must be avoided, and a fast trial must always be prioritized.  Darmawan Vol. 23, No. 1, (April, 2021), pp. 177-191 187 Postponement of a trial is the absolute authority of the panel of judges who examine the case.
Hence, in a fair law enforcement process, the panel of judges must be free from pressure or interference from any parties. The panel of judges must conduct a fair and impartial court. Law enforcement in the Indonesian integrated criminal justice system must be consistently carried out rapidly, simply, and at low cost, as well as freely, honestly, and impartially at all levels of justice as mandated by the Criminal Procedure Code. The principle of justice is also the "spirit" of Article 2 Paragraph 4 of the Judicial Power Law, which stated, "the trial is carried out simply, rapidly, and at low cost". The provision contains two judicial principles, i.e., independent, as well as rapid, simple, and low cost.
During the BTP case trial at the North Jakarta District Court, which was scheduled for criminal charge reading, the public prosecutors requested a two-week trial adjournment due to their inability to complete the criminal indictment. The public prosecutors also considered the adjournment request from the Jakarta Police Chief. Therefore, they asked for the trial to be continued after the second round of the regional election was completed. The author argues that the request for trial delay is legally reasonable because submitting criminal charges is the absolute authority of the public prosecutor based on Article 182 Paragraph 1a of the Criminal Procedure Code. If the public prosecutors have not completed the criminal indictment for reasons that can be accounted for, they have the authority to request a trial adjournment. However, the request to postpone the trial gave the impression that the public prosecutors had complied with the request of the Jakarta Police Chief and damaged public confidence for a fair and transparent law enforcement process. Moreover, the defendant was a public official who was a candidate in a regional election.
Public prosecutors should work professionally and complete the criminal indictment in time according to a predetermined trial schedule.
The application of simple, fast, and low-cost trial principles is intended to respect the dignity and rights of every citizen who faces legal problems. The manifestation of this principle will Kanun Jurnal Ilmu Hukum The Request for Postponement of the Blashphemy Case Criminal Charge Reading by Police … Vol. 23, No. 1, (April, 2021), pp. 177-191. Mohd Andalusia Masri, Dahlan Ali, Darmawan 188 minimize the defendants' losses in undergoing the legal process. Case examination in a lengthy and protracted trial will not provide a sense of fairness, especially for the defendant, because an inappropriate application of legal procedures has the potential to override substantive justice.
The head judge must act as a commander and make efforts to carry out each step of the trial proceeding rapidly. All obstacles that arise due to the rigid application of procedures must be minimized to prevent an obstructed legal process that may result in a protracted trial. An example is a repeatedly adjourned trial due to the inability of the public prosecutors to complete the criminal indictment. The public prosecutors are considered not using their rights proportionally if they cannot complete the criminal indictment within the given time limit. Thus, to manifest a fair legal process, the panel of judges should continue the trial with the following agenda based on the applicable procedural law.
Trial delays for reasons that cannot be accounted for will hamper the manifestation of simple, rapid, and low-cost trial principles. It will also harm the defendant's right. Thus, as part of the criminal justice sub-system, all parties must maintain the neutrality of justice in Indonesia.
In order for judges to resolve problems or conflicts impartially based on the applicable law, they must be independent and free from the influence of any parties, including the government, police, and prosecutors, in the decision-making process. Judges have the right to resolve cases they are responsible for without being dictated by any party (Lubis, 2008).

CONCLUSIONS
The police's request to adjourn the criminal charge reading in the blasphemy case at the North Jakarta District Court was not based on Indonesia's positive law that does not explicitly state that requesting such matter is one of the authorities of the police. Meanwhile, the request for trial postponement by the public prosecutors was based on the provisions of Article 182 Paragraph 1a of the Criminal Procedure Code, which gives absolute authority to the public prosecutors to submit  Darmawan Vol. 23, No. 1, (April, 2021), pp. 177-191 189 criminal charges. Therefore, if the public prosecutors have not yet completed the indictment with justifiable reasons, they have the authority to request a trial adjournment.
The request to postpone the trial by the police can be seen as a form of police intervention in the trial proceeding, which has legal consequences. The police can request to adjourn a trial if they are part of the prosecutors in a criminal proceeding that follows a rapid trial procedure. Apart from these provisions, the police do not have the legal standing to request a trial postponement.
Meanwhile, the postponement request by the public prosecutors due to their inability to complete the criminal indictment, as well as considering the reasons for the request by the police, may affect public trust in the law enforcement process. Public prosecutors should work professionally in completing criminal indictments so that they can be delivered according to the predetermined trial schedule, especially for cases that attract public attention.