Allen Gatan as the Petitioner\'s attorney (right) in the ruling hearing of the judicial review of Law Number 14 of 1985 on the Supreme Court and Law Number 48 of 2009 on Judicial Powers, Tuesday (30/10) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The Constitutional Court (MK) could not accept the material review of the judicial review provision as contained in Law No. 14/1985 on Supreme Court and Law No. 48/2009 on Judicial Powers. The Court reasoned that the material reviewed had been decided by the Constitutional Court and could not be requested for re-examination. The hearing of decision No. 62/PUU-XVI/2018 was held on Tuesday (30/10) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. "The verdict adjudicated, states that the Petitioner\'s petition is unacceptable," said Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Anwar Usman. 

In the opinion of the Court read out by the Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto, the Court considered that there was no difference between the basis of the review used in the a quo petition and petitions No. 16/PUU-VIII/2010, 45/PUU-XIII/2015, and 108/PUU-XIV/2016. One of the several bases in petition No. 16/2010 is Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 27 paragraph (1), Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28H paragraph (2), and Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. The basis for judicial review in the a quo petition is Article 1 paragraph (3) and Article 24 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. "Accordingly, based on Article 60 paragraph (2) of the Constitutional Court Law, according to the Court, the Petitioner\'s petition cannot be petitioned again," Justice Aswanto said. 

Sutrisno Nugroho is an individual Indonesian citizen who has been convicted by the West Jakarta District Court No. 1985/Pid/Sus/2015/PN.Jkt.Brt dated March 31, 2016 and has also submitted two judicial review petitions as the Deed of Request for Judicial Review No. 07/Akta Pid.Sus/2017/PN.Jkt.Brt. dated June 05, 2017. Then on Wednesday, March 28, 2018, the Petitioner felt that he had found new evidence (novum) so he tried again to submit a request for judicial review for the second time. However, the Petitioner felt that the second request was in vain because of the limitation in the law requested for judicial review as stated in Article 66 paragraph (1) of the Supreme Court Law and Article 24 paragraph (2) of the Judicial Power Law. 

According to the Petitioner, the Constitutional Court through decision No. 34/PUU-XI/2013 had allowed petitions for judicial review related to criminal cases to be submitted more than once. However, the District Court where the Petitioner was tried refused the judicial review petition due to the Circular Letter of the Supreme Court (SEMA) No. 07/2014 dated December 31, 2014. The SEMA stipulates not to accept judicial review petitions for the second or more time, except when there are multiple decisions on one subject matter. Because of lack of consistency between the a quo article that regulates judicial review restrictions, it violates the principle of the rule of law and fair legal certainty as stipulated in Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)