Registrar of The Court, Kasianur Sidauruk handed over a copy of the decision for case No. 22/PUU-VIII/2010 about the judicial review of Act No. 8/1981 on the Book of Criminal Codes to the Principal Petitioner, Yusri Ardisoma bin Urdiman, Friday (11/3).
Jakarta, MKOnline - Whether or not there is a lawsuit on case review did not prevent the implementation of the decision for the sake of fair legal certainty. The Principle indeed implemented the principle of a constitutional state.
That was one of the legal consideration of the Constitutional Court (The Court) in the session for decision reading of case 22/PUU-VIII/2010 concerning the judicial review of Act 8/1981 on Book of Criminal Codes (KUHAP), Friday (11/3/2011) taken place at the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. In the verdict, The Court stated the petition as unaccepted.
The Petition was submitted by Yusri Ardisoma bin Urdiman. This Subang-born man sought to review the constitutionality of Article 268 paragraph (1) of the KUHAP. Yusri argued that his constitutional rights as guaranteed by Article 28D Paragraph (1), Article 28I Paragraph (1), (2) and (5) of the 1945 Constitution had been violated by the existence of the article mentioned before.
Yusri argued that based on the decision of Subang District Court No. 214/Pid/2006/PN.Sbg dated May 28, 2007, he was convicted of corruption. Then, using the decision as the basis, he made an appeal to Bandung Appellate Court which then supported the decision of Subang District Court. After that Yusri filed for a cassation to the Supreme Court.
According to Yusri, the article stating that “A request for a case review on a verdict does not sustain or prevent the implementation of the decision,” had disrupted his constitutional rights; because based on the article, there should be an execution imposed on him. On the other side, Yusri had tried to make a legal move by applying for a cassation. Should the cassation be granted, while he had already underwent the sanction, that would only rehabilitate his rights and dignity. Whereas his physical and mental sufferings could not be restored.
The Court in their legal considerations stated that article 268 paragraph (1) of KUHAP was arranging on the implementation of a court’s decision with permanent legal force; even though on the decision, there was an effort asking for a case review. In other words, the article strengthened a principle that a court’s decision with a permanent legal force should be executed.
Therefore, The Court believed that the questioned article did not cause a constitutional loss whether specifically or actually also there was no cause-result relationship (causal verbaand) between the loss mentioned and the implementation of the questioned article. Moreover, factually the Petitioner was taken a cassation effort on the decision of Bandung Appellate Court.
The case review was an extraordinary legal effort that could be taken by a convict or the convict’s heir on a court decision with permanent legal force according to the procedure regulated within the Act and without a time limit as arranged in Article 264 paragraph (3) of the KUHAP.
Therefore, if there was a stipulation in Article 268 paragraph (1) was stated as against the 1945 Constitution, it would indeed cause a legal uncertainty and injustice both to the convict or the heir or to the law itself. If there was a problem, it would not be on the constitutionality of the norm but on the implementation of a norm.
In the conclusion, The Court stated that they were authorized to examine, adjudge and decide on the case. However, because the Petitioner did not fulfill the requirement for a legal standing, then The Court did not consider the main substance (Nur Rosihin Ana/mh/YDJ)
Friday, March 11, 2011 | 16:05 WIB 230