Consitutional Court (MK) decided that Article 45A paragraph (2) letter c Act on Supreme Court that regulated limitation for supreme court verdicts, “Towards the case on State Management which the objectum litis is the regional officer’s decree the area of which applies in the related area” did not violate Article 27 paragraph (1), Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 24 paragraph (1), paragraph (2), and paragraph (3), also Article 24C paragraph (1) 1945 Constitution.
“Because of that, the reasoning delivered by the Petitioners did not have solid ground therefore the Petition should be declined,” said Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Jimly Asshiddiqie, when reading the verdict of case No. 23/PUU-V/2007 about the trial of Act No. 5 Year 2004 on the Alteration of Act No. 14 Year 1985 on Supreme Court (UU MA) at the Plennary Trial of the Constitutional Court, Monday (14/1) afternoon.
The Constitutional Court argued that the limitation on cases suitable to pleaded for verdicts was a common practice in democratic legal countries, whether they adopted the common law or civil law, whether they used jury system or non-jury system. The Constitutional Court also argued that such limitation was not appropriate to be considered as discrimination so long as on the verdict of the first level trial was given an opportunity to bring it before the trial at the higher ground in casu appeal court that played a good role as judex facti as well as judex juris.
The Petitioner, Hendriansyah, who was a director of CV. Sungai Bendera Jaya that work in the production of swallows’ nest from East Kutai Regency, considered Article 45A Paragraph (2) letter c Act on Supreme Court that regulated the limitation of cases to brought before the Supreme Court was against the Article 27 Paragraph (1), Article 28D Paragraph (1), Article 24 Paragraph (1), Paragraph (2), and Paragraph (3) also Article 24C Paragraph (1) 1945 Constitution. The Petitioner argued that Article 45A paragraph (2) letter c Act on Supreme Court violated The Constitution because it had pulled out, blocked, and eliminated the Petitioner’s right to plead for two verdicts from the Higher Court of State Administration Jakarta No. 60/B/2007/PT.TUN.JKT., dated June 28, 2007 and No. 59/B/2007/PT. TUN.JKT., dated June 28, 2007. The regulation on the article a quo by the Petitioners was considered discriminative, because it only preventing the case on Court of State Administration case with the object of the case was the decree of regional officers, meanwhile if the object was the decree of central Officers the pleading was unlimited.
On the argument of the Petitioner, related to the Article 27 paragraph (1), Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 28I paragraph  (2) the 1945 Constitution, MK commented that the petitum did not have any connection to the rights of equal treatment in the governance. Because of that, as long as it is related to the rights for equal treatment in the governance, the argument did not have solid ground. Regarding the case whether the regulation on Article 5A paragraph (2) letter c Act on Supreme Court had caused unequal treatment before the law for the Petitioner, according to the Constitutional Court, such argument could only be accepted if there was other party with the same qualification as the Petitioner but getting different treatment as the result of the existence of Article 45A paragraph (2) letter c Act on Supreme Court, whereas it could not be proven. If there was a situation happened similar to the one experienced by the Petitioner but before the ammendment of the Act No. 14 year 1985 took place, such thing was not a prove of unequal treatment before the law, but it was the consequence of the ammendment.
Regarding the question whether or not Article 45A paragraph (2) letter c Act on Supreme Court had produced discriminative treatment, based on Article 1 number 3 Act No. 39 Year 1999 on Human Rights, what the Petitioner had experienced, the Constitutional Court argued that it could not be considered as discrimination.  It was true that the Petitioner had undergone an unfair treatment, however it was not the result of the existence of discriminative legal norms; it was because of the ammendment of the mentioned act.
Furthermore, the Constitutional Court argued that seen from the point of view of inter-reguloation horizontal harmony, in this case between the Act of Supreme Court and Act on Justicial Power (Act No. 4 Year 2004), such limitation could still be accepted. Act No. 4 Year 2004 on Justicial Power, in the Article 22 it was stated, “For the  verdict of Appeal Court can be pleaded a verdict from the Supreme Court by the related parties, except the legislation says differently”.
Besides that, even if the verdict of the judges on which could not be pleaded for a verdict from the Supreme Court, it contained a mistake, forgetfulness, and error that could cause a loss in the Petitioner’s Constitutional Rights, then the Petitioner was still able to appeal for extraordinary legal efforts that was another overview  to the Supreme Court who had the authority to fix the wrong verdicts with fixed legal ground. Such regulation was arranged in Article 23 paragraph (1) Act No. 4 Year 2004 on Justicial Power that stated, “To the verdict with solid legal ground, the related parties could ask for a review to the Supreme Court,if there is certain thing or situation defined in the regulation”. [ardli/Yogi Djatnika]

Monday, January 14, 2008 | 16:52 WIB 270