Attorney of Petitioner Ngadino Hardjosiswojo listens to the advice from the Panel of Justices in the first Hearing of case of Law Number 14 Year 1985 concerning the Supreme Court (Supreme Court Law), (12/10).
Jakarta, MKOnline - Law Number 14 Year 1985 concerning the Supreme Court (Supreme Court Law) was again filed for judicial review to the Constitutional Court on Tuesday (12/10) at the Building of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. Ngadino Hardjosiswojo is the Petitioner of the case registered with the Court’s Registrar’s Office under Number 56/PLaw-VIII/2010.
Represented by his attorney Bakti Prasetiyo, the Petitioner argued that his constitusional right is impaired with the coming into force of Article 67 sub-article b and Article 69 sub-article b of the Supreme Court Law. Article 67 sub-article b of the Supreme Court Law states “Petition for reconsideration of civil case decision obtaining permanent legal force may still be filed only under the following reasons: (b) in the event that after the case is decided upon, a conclusive documentary evidence is found which during the examination of the case, it was not yet discovered”. Meanwhile, Article 69 sub-article b of the Supreme Court Law states “The period for filing petition for reconsideration based on the reasons as intended in Article 67 shall be 180 (one hundred eighty) days for: (b) that of referred to in sub-article b since the documentary evidence is found, the day and date of such finding must be stated under oath and ratified by the authorized official”. The Article a quo is contradictory to Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution.
“This is contradictory to Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution since as a result of both of these Articles, the Petitioner is unable to file for a Reconsideration,” Bakti said.
Bakti explained that the Petitioner discovered new evidence in the appeal process, but the problem was that the Petitioner’s case was not yet inkracht and the evidence presented by the Petitioner had not reached 180 days. “The Petitioner’s evidence was also deemed as not having binding legal force. Therefore, the Petitioner could not fie for a Reconsideration,” he explained.
Responding the Petitioner’s petition, Constitutional Justice Harjono explained that the Petitioner must describe which of the Petitioner’s constitutional rights guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution are being impaired due to the coming into force of the Article a quo. “Please indicate which provisions of the 1945 Constitution becomes the reason of your constitutional impairment. If you only mention Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution, it is very general. The Petitioner should also make an addition to his petitum, not only stating that such provision is contradictory to the 1945 Constitution, but also that it does not have a binding legal force,” Harjono explained.
Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Achmad Sodiki as the Chairperson of the Panel of Justices questioned that if the Article is annulled, there would no longer be any Article stipulating time limit for Reconsideration. “Then, how the petition should be filed? The Petitioner must formulate Petitioner’s petitum more accurately. That is what needs to be formulated if this Article is annulled in order to avoid legal vacuum,” he explained.
The Petitioner was given 14 days to revise his petition. (Lulu Anjarsari/mh)
Tuesday, October 12, 2010 | 16:30 WIB 234