By: Abdul Rozak)*
The existence of the Draft Criminal Code (RKUHP) in fact still gives respect to the privacy life of each individual Indonesian society without exception. Therefore, the polemic regarding the hotel check-in article is actually not a criminal threat, but is a complaint offense.
Recently, there has been a lot of news circulating that has gone viral on social media regarding an article in the draft RKUHP which stipulates that non-mahram couples when staying together or checking in at a hotel will face criminal penalties of up to six months in prison. This prohibition is regulated in the draft of the Draft Criminal Code (RKUHP) which was released on July 4, 2022.
This news caused controversy among the public. No exception for hotel and inn owners who have been assessing that the decision to stay is guest privacy. However, it turns out that not all illegitimate couples who stay at the hotel together can be imprisoned. Because this rule is a complaint offense. The plan is that this draft will be ratified by the end of 2022.
It is written in Article 416 paragraph (1) that everyone who lives together as husband and wife outside of marriage is sentenced to a maximum imprisonment of 6 (six) months or a maximum fine of category II. However, in paragraph (2) of the same article, it is stated that this criminal threat is a complaint offense. That is, can only be punished if someone complains.
The party who complains is also regulated. It can only be complained by: a. Husband or wife, for people who are bound by marriage; or b. Parents or children, for people who are not bound by marriage. Furthermore, in paragraph (3) of the article, it is stated that a complaint cannot be made if it is included in the provisions stipulated in Articles 25, 26 and 30 of the RKUHP.
Article 25 itself reads: paragraph (1) In the event that the victim of a criminal offense is not yet 16 (sixteen) years old, the person who has the right to complain is the parent or guardian. Paragraph (2) In the event that the parent or guardian as referred to in paragraph (1) is absent or the parent or guardian itself must be reported, the complaint shall be made by a blood relative in a straight line.
Then Paragraph (3) In the event that there is no blood family in the straight line as referred to in Paragraph (2), the complaint is made by the blood family in the lateral line up to the third degree. And Paragraph (4) In the event that the Child does not have a parent, guardian, or blood family in a straight line up or sideways to the third degree, the complaint is made by himself and/or his companion.
As for Article 26 itself, it is written: Paragraph (1) In the event that the victim of a criminal offense is under guardianship, the person who has the right to complain is the custodian, except for the victim of the crime of complaint who is under custodial because it is extravagant.
Furthermore, for Paragraph (2) in the event that there is no custodian as referred to in Paragraph (1) or the custodian himself must be reported, the complaint is made by the victim’s husband or wife or blood relatives in a straight line. Whereas Paragraph (3) In the event that the husband or wife of the Victim or blood family in a straight line as referred to in Paragraph (2) does not exist, the complaint is made by the blood family in a sideways line up to the third degree.
Meanwhile, Article 30 reads: Paragraph (1) Complaints can be withdrawn by the complainant within 3 (three) months from the date the complaint is filed. Paragraph (2) A complaint that is withdrawn cannot be filed again. As for Paragraph 4 in Article 416 regarding cohabitation, it is stated that the complaint can be withdrawn as long as the examination in court has not yet started.
Regarding all the misunderstandings that are widespread in the community through social media, Spokesperson for the RU KUHP Socialization Team, Albert Aries asserted that all of these views are clearly wrong because if there is a non-mahram couple who checks in together at the hotel, it is absolutely not possible to do it immediately. sentenced to prison.
In fact, according to him, with clearly regulated in the RKUHP, the community also cannot immediately carry out raids if it is not accompanied by complaints from parties that have been previously regulated. In other words, a person’s private space is actually protected by criminal law, because the public or other third parties cannot report to the authorities, nor are they allowed to take vigilante actions (persecution).
From all these descriptions, it is actually clear that in fact the existence of the RKUHP still respects the entire life and privacy of every individual Indonesian society. So that the concerns of hotel business owners have actually been answered, that the check-in ban will actually be followed up if there is a report beforehand and can’t be acted on immediately.
)* The author is a contributor to the Nusa Bangsa Institute
