Name: Reynaldo Arya

Id: 017201800016

Subject: Moot Court and Arbitration

1. Cases Description

1.1 Time and Place

a. Time: Wednesday, 14th October 2020
b. Place: Surabaya District Court
c. Address: Jl. Arjuno No.16-18, Sawahan, Kec. Sawahan, Surabaya, Jawa Timur
1.2 Cases
a. Case No. 2183/Pid.Sus/2020/PN Sby (Narcotics)
a.1 Parties:
- Prosecutor: Suryanta Desy Christiani, S.H.
- Defendant: Ahmad Hidayat bin Sai

a.2 Agenda: Reading the Indictment Letter

Chronologically, the defendant was caught using drugs when the police
conducted a search based on public information at the defendant's house.
In the trial, the prosecutor showed the picture evidence of one plastic bag
containing white crystals methamphetamine, recorded in group I with a net
weight of 0.002 grams. The prosecutor accused the defendant of
committing a criminal act "without rights or against the law of possession,
maintenance, control of non-plant narcotics class I", as regulated in Article
112 paragraph (1) of Law Number 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotic.

b. 2125/Pid.B/2020/PN Sby (Theft)

a.1 Parties:
- Prosecutor: Diah Ratri Hapsari, Sh, Mh
- Defendant: Komariyah Binti Hosiyah
a.2 Agenda: Reading the Indictment Letter
The prosecutor accused the defendant of committing the act of "taking
something, wholly or partly belonging to someone else, with the intention
of being illegally owned", subject to Article 362 of the Criminal Code. As
 a result of defendant’s action, the victim witness, Nurul Hesti Istiqomah
suffered losses of approximately Rp. 4,785,000.
c. Case No. 2128/Pid.B/2020/PN Sby (Fraud)
c.1 Parties:
- Prosecutor: Diah Ratri Hapsari, Sh, Mh
- Defendant: Komariyah Binti Hosiyah
c.2 Agenda: Examination of Witnesses
According to witness testimony, Khusnul Khotimah, who was a close
friend of the defendant, the defendant said that he wants to pawn a Honda
Vario motorcycle for 2,000,000 to Tohir, but she did not know that the
motorcycle did not belong to the defendant. The trial was postponed next
week, 21st October 2020 for examination of other witnesses.
d. Case No. 2129/Pid.Sus/2020/PN Sby (Narcotics)
d.1 Parties:
- Prosecutor: Dedi Arisandi, S.H., M.H.
- Defendant: Moch. Eksa Ariffudin Bin Hari Budiman
d.2 Agenda: Reading the Charge
In line with the indictment letter, the defendant was found guilty of
committing a criminal act "without rights or against the law of ownership,
maintenance, controls of non-plant narcotics class I", and punishable under
the Article 112 paragraph (1) of Law Number 35 of 2009 concerning
Narcotics. However, the trial for the agenda of reading the charge was
postponed next week 21st October 2020, because the prosecutor is not
ready with the charge letter.
e. Case No. 2131/Pid.B/2020/PN Sby (Theft)
e.1 Parties:
- Prosecutor: Dedi Arisandi, S.H., M.H.
- Defendant: Moch. Eksa Ariffudin Bin Hari Budiman
e.2 Agenda: Reading the Indictment Letter
Chronologically, on Sunday, July 20, 2020, the defendant through a WA
conversation contacted Dika and planned to steal the victim's bicycle. The
defendant was picked up by his friends, Temon and Dika and together
they committed theft at the victim's empty residence. As the result of
defendant’s action, the victim, Satrio Tugis suffered a loss of
 approximately Rp. 1,000,000. The defendant was accused of “taking
something wholly or partly the property of another person with the
intention of being illegally owned by the law, at night in the compound of
a house or prison by someone unknown or unknown to the person entitled,
by two or more persons with allies", subject to Article 363 paragraph (1)
3, 4 of Criminal Code.

2. Observation Result

Regarding trials that are conducted online, there are several main obstacles that I face:
the trial lasts longer and is not conducive, this happens because the courts and prisons
internet connections are often cut off, not to mention the judges who have to keep shouting
so that the defendant and the prosecutor can hear the voice more clearly. In my opinion,
there are several trial practices that are not in accordance with the criminal procedure law,
which are:

 The judge doesn't open the trial and doesn't declared the trial open to the
public. The implication is that the decision can be said to be invalid or null and
void. Article 64 of the Criminal Procedure Code regulates that “Defendants
have the right to be tried in a court that is open to the public”; Article 153
paragraph (3) states that: “For the purpose of examination, the head judge at
trial opens court and declared it open to the public except in cases of decency
or alleged children. 2.” and; Article 153 paragraph (4): Failure to fulfill the
provisions in paragraph (2) and paragraph (3) results in the cancellation of the
decision.
 In the agenda of reading the indictment letter, the judge did not remind the
defendant to pay attention to the indictment letter nor asking if the defendant
understand the indictment letter or not. In fact, if not reminded, the defendant
could not properly understand the contents of the indictment which result in
the losing of right to know of defendant on what he was accused of. Article
155 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code regulates that “At the
beginning of the trial, the head of the trial asked the defendant about his full
name, place of birth, age or date of birth, gender, nationality, place of
residence, religion and occupation and remind the defendant to pay attention
to everything he hears and sees at the trial. "
 The judge does not allow other witnesses to leave the courtroom. This practice
allows other witnesses to know what questions the judge is asking and allows
the witness to prepare answers in advance. This injures Article 160 paragraph
(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code Letter A: “Witnesses are summoned to the
courtroom one by one in the order they are most likely beneficial by the head
judge at trial after hearing the opinion of the public prosecutor, defendant or
legal adviser.