Former chairman of the Corruption Eradication Commission Antasari Azhar reviewed reconsideration (PK) provision in Act 8 of 1981 on Criminal Code. According to him, the filing restriction of PK only once has given rise to injustice and harms their constitutional rights as citizens.
This was revealed by Antasari in Case No. 34/PUU-XI/2013 on Wednesday (10/4) at the Panel Session. Antasari accompanied by his lawyer present with tight police escort and prison officers of Tangerang. Understandably, he was serving a prisoner was found guilty by the Supreme Court in the murder of the President Director of PT. Putra Rajawali Banjaran, Andi Nasrudin Zulkarnaen. Previous Antasari had been filed PK, but was rejected by the Supreme Court.
"On this day, we pray briefly at the Constitutional Court in order to test the Article 268 that PK can be filed more than one time in accordance with the terms specified laws, of course novum reasons and so forth," said Azhar.
In his petition, Antasari examined Article 268 paragraph (3) Criminal Procedure Code which reads, "Request for a judicial review of a decision can only be done one time only."
Antasari revealed, it will continue to fight for justice for her. He claimed to have a variety of evidence leads to the fact that he was not guilty of the murder of Nasrudin Zulkarnaen. And, the only attempt to prove it is by opening opportunities PK more than once. "For what I was born into the world, if I wronged like this," he said citing the writings of John Grisham in print.
At least, according to him, the provision stating only once PK is contrary to Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 28C Paragraph (1) and (2), Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 28H Paragraph (2) of the Constitution , 1945. Therefore, Antasari’s petition asking the Court stated that the formula is constitutional on parole.
"Declare Article 268 paragraph (3) of Law No. 8 of 1981 on Criminal Procedure Code, reads: ‘Request for Judicial Review of a decision can only be done once, unless the reason for the discovery of new evidence (novum) based application of science and technology can be submitted more than once," said Arif Sahudi, one of Antasari’s attorney.
In addition, Arif said, it also appealed to the Constitutional Court for a hearing this case combining with Case No. 21/PUU-XI/2013 filed by the victim’s younger brother, Andi Syamsuddin namely Iskandar. In his petition, Iskandar reviewed of Article 263 paragraph (1) and Article 268 paragraph (3) Criminal Procedure Code.
After listening to the points of the case, the Constitutional Court panel chaired by Constitutional Judge Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi accompanied by Anwar Usman and Maria Farida Indrati further provides some suggestions and advice for improvement petition. Basically, says Fadlil, the petition is pretty good, just need to sharpen arguments Petitioner specifically related link between the facts that the applicant had been harmed by the test norms. So is the argument that the petition is not ne bis in idem with some other woods request a test of the same issues. (Dodi / mh).