---

Former supreme court chief justice Bagir Manan attended the session as Applicant’s Expert, on Tuesday (24/1) in Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie

 

 

 

Lengthy process of case record completion resulted by complex bureaucratic procedures can cause justice delay that harms litigant parties and justice seekers, former supreme court chief justice Bagir Manan delivered in further session of Case No. 103/PUU-XIV/2016, on Tuesday (24/1).

Bagir as Applicant’s Expert assessed that case record completion will cause injustice. He argued that complex bureaucratic procedures will cause inefficiency and ineffectiveness, whereas both are interconnected.

“It (complex procedures, ed) can cause justice delay and justice denied, as well as contrary to our court operation that based on principle of quick, simple, and feasible justice,” said him to Justice Panel led by Chief Justice Arief Hidayat.

Contrary to Lex Certa Principle

Meanwhile, law professor of Universitas Gadjah Mada (UGM) Eddy O.S. Hiariej argued that Article 197 (1) the Criminal Procedures Code doesn’t give legal certainty. He explained that the Article only regulates that sentence letter must contain requirements as regulated in the Article, however the Article doesn’t regulate in detail about the definition of sentence letter.

“The Article regulates about sentence letter in entire level of Supreme Court, including district court and high court. It is contrary to the principle of lex certa in criminal procedures law,” said Eddy.

He explained that uncertainty resulted by Article 197 (1) the Criminal Procedures Code makes the Supreme Court troubled in case record procedures, because the Supreme Court must include entire facts found in court session, including indictment, evidence, witness testimony, and expert testimony which already included in district court decision. Due to it, case record process takes long time and there is no certainty when it will be completed. “Even, the quality of justice panel’s consideration becomes not optimal because it focuses more on including entire requirements,” he assessed.

As known, the Applicants were objected with provision of material requirements of sentence letter (surat putusan pemidanaan) as stipulated in Article 197 (1) the Criminal Procedures Code (KUHAP). They argued that the material requirements cause uncertainty on case completion period considering the large amount of the material that must be included. Moreover, the Supreme Court implements the material requirements in all court levels, including cassation or reconsideration. They explained on direct impact experienced by the Applicants, which is unable to provide effective and efficient legal services to justice seekers and considered unprofessional because advocates cannot give certainty to client about when the case they handled completed in the Supreme Court. Moreover, they also argued that time completion uncertainty brings opportunity for people who claim can help to speedy up the case completion. (Lulu Anjarsari/Prasetyo Adi N)

---