The Petitioner\'s legal counsel was present in the judicial review hearing on the ruling on Judicial Power Law, on Wednesday (20/9) at the Plenary Hall of the Constitutional Court Building. Photo by PR/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the entirety of the petition regarding the Judicial Review (PK) of Law No. 4/2004 regarding Judicial Power. The hearing of Decision No. 1/PUU-XV/2017 was held by the Constitutional Court, Wednesday (20/9) in the Plenary Hall of the Constitutional Court.

In his petition, the Petitioner, who is an Indonesian individual, claimed that his constitutional rights to obtain a fair verdict from the Supreme Court was harmed by the enactment of Article 23 paragraph (2) of the Judicial Power Law. Article 23 paragraph (2) of the Judicial Power Law states “A decision of a judicial review cannot be subjected to another judicial review." The Petitioner considers that the provision limits his constitutional right to conduct a judicial review on the Decision of Judicial Review No. 550 PK/Pdt/2000, which is a review of the Supreme Court Decision No. 1164 K/Pdt/1990.

The Petitioner considers that if the a quo article is revoked, judicial review of a civil case may be filed to the Supreme Court more than once, similar to judicial review of a criminal case.

Responding to the petition, the Court reiterated that the fact that judicial review of any case other than criminal cases, including civil cases, was limited to only once is constitutional. It is in accordance with the Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 108/PUU-XIV/2016, which explains that it is different from judicial review of criminal cases of which purpose is to seek material truth as well as human rights protection from the arbitrariness of state especially concerning the rights to life and other fundamental rights.

Thus, the Court through the a quo decision confirmed that judicial review for criminal cases there should be a different treatment from that for other cases. Based on the aforementioned matter, the Court is of the opinion that the restriction of judicial 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 Judicial Power Law is constitutional.

"Therefore, Article 24 paragraph (2) of the Judicial Power Law petitioned for review in the a quo petition has been decided by the Court, thus the Petitioner’s a quo petition is ne bis in idem," said Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna as he read out the Court\'s opinion.

(Lulu Anjarsari/lul/Yuniar Widiastuti)