---

Victor Santoso Tandiasa delivers petition revision at judicial review session on Act of the Supreme Court, on Monday (31/8), at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ifa

 

 

 

The Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi –MK) holds further judicial review session on Act Number 3 Year 2009 of Second Amendment on Act Number 14 Year 1985 of the Supreme Court (Undang-Undang Nomor 3 Tahun 2009 tentang Perubahan Kedua atas Undang-Undang Nomor 14 Tahun 1985 tentang Mahkamah Agung –UU MA). The Applicant strengthens their legal standing and petition demands (petitum) as advised by Justice Panel on previous session. The petition is registered in Case Number 92/PUU-XIII/2015.

Representing by Victor Santoso Tandiasa as Chairman of the Forum of Legal and Constitutional Review, the Applicant says they have strengthen legal standing; changing into ‘direct loss’ from previously which stated ‘potential loss’. “We indeed conduct judicial review towards Presidential Regulation (Peraturan Presiden –Perpres) Number 26 Year 2014, which later we considers it cause direct loss to us because we also don’t know how the process is, and then adjudicated by the Supreme Court,” said him at the session held on Monday (31/8), at the Constitutional Court Building.  

Moreover in the petition, the Applicant also convinces Justice Panel that there is no similarity of the norm filed and the touchstone in this case with Case Number 30/PUU-XIII/2015. According to the Applicant, the matter of 14 days period is concerned in Case number 30.   

The Applicant changes the petitum into ‘conditionally unconstitutional’. “It means the article we reviewed –Article 40 (2) is unconstitutional if it is not interpreted ‘particular for judicial review session shall be conducted open public’ (‘khusus untuk persidangan judicial review dilakukan secara terbuka’),” explained him.

 

As known, the Forum of Legal and Constitutional Review (Forum Kajian Hukum dan Konstitusi –FKHK) files the petition. The Applicant reviews Article 40 (2) Act of the Supreme Court which stated ‘Supreme Court Verdict announced in open public session’.

On previous session, FKHK members Syaugi Pratama explains petition points. According to him, Article 13 (1) Act Number 48 Year 2009 of Judicial Authority (Undang-Undang Kekuasaan Kehakiman) stated entire examination session is open to public unless an Act decides otherwise. As known, Act of the Supreme Court not regulates on judicial review procedure conducted by the Supreme Court. It is further regulated on Supreme Court Regulation (Peraturan Mahkamah Agung). According to the Applicant, if procedural law is not regulated in Act of the Supreme Court, the provision in force is the provision in Act of Judicial Authority.

“The logical consequence is Act of the Supreme Court not regulates on judicial review procedure explicitly and rigidly, so the provision prevailed is Article 13 (1) Act of Judicial Authority which obliges hearing and verdict session open to public,” explained Syaugi at Tuesday session (18/8) of Case Number 92/PUU-XIII/2015.

According to the Applicant, in order to prevent legislative role conducted by the Supreme Court, an Act should be set in advance if the Supreme Court will set further regarding judicial review procedures. “As judicial body, the Supreme Court should not take House of Representatives’ (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat –DPR) and President’s role by making legal provisions without being arranged in legislation,” added him. 

Furthermore, the Applicant compares Supreme Court’s procedural law with Constitutional Court’s procedural law. According to the Applicant, Justices could provide input to Applicants in Constitutional Court’s procedural law, in order to revise Applicant’s petition. He assesses the procedural law conducted by Constitutional Court is different with Supreme Court’s procedural law.

“This is why we assume there is no balance between citizens with their State because the State is very dominant. We assess this issue violates people’s justice,” explained Kurniawan as Applicant. (Lulu Hanifah/IR/Prasetyo Adi N)

---