---

Principal Applicant Muhamad Zainal Arifin was accompanied by his Attorney Riko Wibawa Sitanggang when delivered revision points of his petition at judicial review on Act of Supreme Court, on Monday (4/5) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ifa 

 

 

The Constitutional Court held further session on Act Number 3 Year 2009 of Second Amendment on Act Number 14 Year 1985 of the Supreme Court (Perubahan Kedua Atas UU No. 14 Tahun 1985 tentang Mahkamah Agung) and Act Number 48 Year 2009 of Judicial Authority. Both provisions regulated the restriction of reconsideration (Peninjauan Kembali –PK).

At the revision session, Applicant Muhamad Zainal Arifin revised his legal standing. The Applicant represented by Applicant’s Attorney Riko Wibawa Sitanggang claimed his profession as advocate who concerned on law enforcement issue and justice had legal standing, as stipulated in Act Number 18 Year 2003 of Advocates and Advocates’ Affidavit Minutes.

“The Applicant as law enforcer has responsibility in law enforcement and justice in defending the law interest of his client. The Applicant encourages law enforcement and justice, instead of dwell on his client’s interest,” said Riko at the session of case number 45/PUU-XIII/2015 on Monday (4/5) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building.  

At the session led by Deputy Chief Justice Anwar Usman, the Applicant also added several second-reconsideration cases which rejected by the court because it utilized Article 66 (1) Act of the Supreme Court as legal basis. However, the Constitutional Court had revoked the provision of reconsideration conducted only once which stipulated in the Criminal Procedure (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana –KUHAP) by Constitutional Court Verdict Number 34/PUU-XI/2013.

“if there is provision which hamper the Applicant in the conduct of law enforcement in eradicating corruption by the second-consideration mechanism, the Applicant have constitutional interest for file petition on judicial review,” added him.

Previously, the Applicant assessed inconsistency between Article 66 (1) Act of the Supreme Court and Article 24 (2) Act of Judicial Authority with Constitutional Court Verdict Number 3/PUU-XI/2013 which had revoked the provision of reconsideration conducted only once in criminal cases. If the restriction of reconsideration applied to criminal cases, the Applicant added, the provision would be contrary to the principle of justice which uphold by Indonesian judiciary system.

“By the restriction of reconsideration in criminal cases, it results the constitutional rights of citizen is being violated,” said Riko at initial session of this case on Monday (21/4), the Constitutional Court Building

The Applicant argued that justice couldn’t limit by time or formal provision which restricted extraordinary legal remedy in form of reconsideration for just once. The substantial novum could be founded after the reconsideration filed and adjudicated as noted on Constitutional Court Verdict Number 34/PUU-XI/2013.  

Therefore the Applicant requested to the Constitutional Court to declare Article 66 (1) Act of the Supreme Court and Article 24 (2) Act of Judicial Authority contrary to the 1945 Constitution to the extent the consideration in criminal cases could only filed once. (Lulu Hanifah/Prasetyo Adi N.) 

---