Kasianur Sidauruk (Registrar of Constitutional Court) handed out a copy of the verdict of case number. 64/PUU-VIII/2010 to Agus Nurudin (counsel of the Petitioner), after the hearing on Monday (28/2).
Jakarta, MKOnline - The Petition of the case number 64/PUU-VIII/2010 is ne bis in idem (reviewing the same case for the second time though it has been decided)…... "To declare the petition inadmissible," It was expressed by the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Moh. Mahfud MD, on the reading of the verdict session on Monday (28/ 2), in the Plenary Court. Act as Petitioner for this case is the Director of the CV. Kurnia Abadi, Sigit Soegiarto bin Ong Ting Kang.
Previously, the Petitioner reviewed the constitutionality of the arrangement for case review. In this case, Petitioner reviewed Article 24 paragraph (2) of Law number 48/2009 on Judicial Power, Article 66 paragraph (1) of Law number 3/2009 on the Supreme Court, and Article 268 paragraph (3) of Law 8/1981 on Criminal Procedural Law. According to the Petitioner, the rule stated that case review may only be submitted once has harmed his constitutional rights.
Court's opinion stated that review of those provisions had been decided in the verdict of case number 16/PUU-VIII/2010. In verdict dated December 15, 2010, the Court declared these articles did not violate the 1945 Constitution, so that the court declined the petition. The argument of the Court at that time, if the provisions of judicial review as an extraordinary legal effort is not limited there will be obscurity and legal uncertainty on how many times a review can be done.
"This situation will thus lead to a fair legal uncertainty on when a case will end--this is against the provisions of the 1945 Constitution which shall give fair recognition, guarantees, protection and legal certainty to everyone. In the case a quo, there is no violation of the principle of fair recognition, guarantees, protection and legal certainty against Petitioner, because Petitioner was not treated differently to all other citizens", said Maria Farida Indrati (Constitutional Justice).
In addition, Maria also asserted that the Court found no different legal grounds for reviewing of articles of the proposed petition."Thus, the considerations in Decision No. 16/PUU-VIII/2010, dated December 15, 2010, mutatis mutandis, apply to the petition a quo, therefore, the petition should be declared unacceptable. (Dodi/ mh/Nin@free)
Tuesday, March 01, 2011 | 09:57 WIB 218