Bgd. Syafri as attorney of the Petitioner in the hearing of the verdict of judicial review of Judicial Power Law on Thursday (19/10) in the Plenary Hall of the Constitutional Court Building. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court (MK) cannot accept the petition for judicial review of the Judicial Review (PK) of Law No. 48/2009 on Judicial Power. The hearing to read the Decision No. 23/PUU-XV/2017 was held by the Constitutional Court on Thursday (19/10) in the Plenary Hall of the Constitutional Court.

Sulindro and family described the constitutional harm they experienced due to the enactment of Article 24 paragraph (2) that reads, "A decision of a judicial review cannot be subjected to another judicial review."

The Petitioner is the defendant of a letter forgery case who filed a petition for judicial review, which had been rejected by the Supreme Court. Against the verdict, the Petitioner wanted to file a judicial review, but was rejected based on Article 24 paragraph (2) of the Judicial Power Law. The Petitioner was convicted for using fake deed/letter. Meanwhile, the forger of the deed/letter is unable to locate and therefore not convicted. Therefore, the Petitioner requested the revocation of Article 24 paragraph (2) of the Judicial Power Law. The Petitioner assessed that the regulation is contrary to the 1945 Constitution.

Responding to the request, in the opinion of the Constitutional Court read by Justice Wahiduddin Adams, the Constitutional Court considered that petition for judicial review in criminal cases had been decided in Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 34/PUU-XI/2013. The decision was reaffirmed in Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 108/PUU-XIV/2016, which states in its consideration on the judicial review of criminal cases, the Constitutional Court had declared that Article 66 paragraph (1) of the Supreme Court Law and Article 24 paragraph (2) of the Judicial Power Law no longer had legal force and were no longer valid because their substance was the same as that of Article 268 paragraph (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) that had been declared unconstitutional.

"Therefore, in truth, the articles in those laws with regard to judicial review of criminal cases are no longer valid, so the Petitioner\'s petition has lost its object," said Justice Wahiduddin. (Lulu Anjarsari/Yuniar Widiastuti)