Agus Nurudin and Azi Widianingrum, Attorneys of Sigit Sugiarto bin Ong Ting Kang, the Director of CV. Kurnia Abadi, files for judicial review on the constitutionality of article regulating Reconsideration (PK), Monday (25/10).
Jakarta, MKOnline – Feeling to have been impaired by the coming into effect of Article 24 paragraph (2) of Law No. 48 Year 2009 regarding Judicial Power, the Director of CV. Kurnia Abadi, Sigit Soegiarto (Petitioner), filed for a judicial review to the Constitutional Court (the Court). The Petitioner was intended to review of the constitutionality of article regulating Reconsideration (PK). This Article reads, “Decision of reconsideration may not be filed for reconsideration.”
The Petitioner, through his attorney, Agus Nurudin, stated that the coming into effect of the said article had done the Petitioner’s injustice. “The Petitioner feels oppressed by the said law,” he said. The Petitioner felt impaired because the trade mark he validly registered had been omitted due to the existence of the Supreme Court’s decision filed by PT. Inax International Corporation.
In addition to that, at the preliminary hearing, Monday (25/10) noon, at the Panel court room of the Constitutional Court, the Petitioner also reviewed the constitutionality of Article 66 paragraph (1) of Law No. 14 year 1985 jo Law No. 3 year 2009 regarding the Supreme Court, as well as Article 268 paragraph (3) of Law No. 8 year 1981 regarding the Indonesian Criminal Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana/KUHP). Both of the articles are concerned with the non-existence of PT after PK decision, or in other words, the second PK is not available.
According to the Petitioner, the absence of the second PK had impaired his constitutional rights. Therefore, the Petitioner filed a judicial review of such articles against Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 24 paragraph (1), Article 27 paragraph (1), Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28H paragraph (2) and Article 28J paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. ”We emphasize on the principles of justice,” Agus explained.
With regard to the foregoing petition, the Panel of Justices consisting of Constitutional Justices, Hamdan Zoelva (Chairperson of the Panel of Justices), Muhammad Alim as well as Harjono, gave several suggestions and inputs for revision to the petition. According to Hamdan, it was important for the Petitioner to take into account the limit for filling the PK itself. “Is it two, three, four times or how many times?” Hamdan explained to the Petitioner’s attorney. Hamdan added that one of the purposes that regulation on PK was made is to prove legal certainty. This was also conveyed by Alim. And legal certainty is one of the principles recognized in the constitution.
“What is the reason of the impairment of your right? Is it because of judge’s mistake or because of such articles? This must be clear. Because the Court does not conduct judicial review on the Supreme Court’s decision, but rather norms,” Harjono said in a firm tone, reminding.
Furthermore, the Petitioner was given 14 days to revise his petition. “There are other Petitioners filing for judicial review on this article. Could you (the Petitioner, red) please take a look the revision and elaborate it. We may need to present it to the hearing together,” said Hamdan just before adjourning the hearing. (Dodi/mh)
Monday, October 25, 2010 | 14:52 WIB 341