The Petitioner\\'s attorneys Saharuddin Daming and Yayi Zaitun Asdy attended the court for the declaration of the verdict of the judicial review of the Supreme Court Law on Wednesday (26/7) in the Plenary Hall of the Constitutional Court Building. Photo by Humas/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court rejected the entire petition for judicial review of Law Number 14 Year 1985 regarding the Supreme Court and Law Number 48 Year 2009 regarding Judicial Power. The verdict No. 108/PUU-XIV/2016 was read by the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Arief Hidayat on Wednesday (26/7) at the Plenary Hall of the Constitutional Court.

The Petitioner was Abdul Rahman C. DG Tompo. He argued that his constitutional rights were violated by the enactment of two articles, namely Article 66 Paragraph (1) of the Supreme Court Law and Article 24 paragraph 2 of the Judiciary Law. Both laws stipulate that the petition for Judicial Review for civil cases may be filed only once. Article 66 Paragraph (1) of the Supreme Court Law states "Petition for judicial review may be filed only 1 (one) time", while Article 24 Paragraph (2) of the Judiciary Law states "A decision of a judicial review cannot be subjected to another judicial review.”

The Petitioner considered the two articles to be contrary to the previous three Court decisions regarding the Court. However, these three decisions apply only to criminal cases, not civil cases as experienced by the Petitioner. This is what makes the Petitioners feel discriminated against.

Responding to the petition, the Court declares that for cases outside the criminal case, including civil cases petitioned by the Petitioner, the application of review remains to be limited. It is based on the opinion of the Court in Decision Number 16/PUU-VIII/2010 dated December 15, 2010 regarding the review of the constitutionality of Article 66 paragraph (1) of the Supreme Court Law and Article 24 paragraph (2) of Judiciary Law.

The Court is of the opinion that if re-filing a petition for more than once for a case other than criminal is open to discretion, the settlement of the case will be long and might never be completed. This ultimately leads to legal uncertainty. Such a situation is contrary to the litis finiri oportet principle (that every case must end) and thus causes harm to justice seekers. Moreover, the Court is of the opinion that if case review for non-criminal case is not restricted, it will be potentially used by litigants to stall the settlement by searching for a new novum, aiming to delay the case’s execution.

"If this is the case, it can be ascertained that provision of justice for justice seekers in cases other than criminal would be a serious threat, because such circumstances will lead to legal uncertainty as well as injustice that is contrary to the 1945 Constitution," said Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo reading out the Court’s legal considerations .

It is unlike the review of criminal cases whose purpose is to seek material truth and protection of human rights from the arbitrariness of the state. Therefore, through a quo decision, the Court confirms that review for criminal cases must receive different treatment from other cases. Based on the above matters, the Court is of the opinion that the limit of case review to only once in cases other than criminal, including civil cases, as regulated in Article 66 paragraph (1) of the Supreme Court Law and Article 24 paragraph (2) of the Judiciary Law, is constitutional. "Based on all the above legal considerations, the Court is of the opinion that the Petitioners\\' petition is unreasonable according to law," he said.

(Lulu Anjarsari/lul/Yuniar Widiastuti)