Panel preliminary examination hearing of the judicial review of the Supreme Court Law, Thursday (6/12) in the Panel Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court (MK) held a judicial review hearing of Law No. 14/1985 on the Supreme Court (MA Law), on Thursday (6/12). The preliminary examination hearing was requested by H. Husin Syahendra and Nurhayati. Both are cassation appellants in Case No. 03/ PDT.G/2014/PN.RHL, which was decided on July 15, 2014 by the Rokan Hilir District Court in conjunction with CaseNo. 65/PDT/2018/PT.PBR, which was decided on July 11, 2018 by the Pekanbaru High Court. 

The Petitioners of case No. 95/PUU-XVI/2018 argue that their constitutional rights have been impaired by the enactment of Article 47 of the Supreme Court Law. Article 47 paragraph (1) of the Supreme Court Law reads, "(1) The petition for cassation shall be furnished with a cassation memorandum containing the reasons, submitted within 14 (fourteen) days after the request is recorded in the book list." 

In the petition, the Petitioners considered the article to have adversely affected their constitutional rights as citizens because they were discriminated against in obtaining guarantees, protection, and legal certainty in obtaining justice and equal treatment before the law. Furthermore, they explained that the article had become a basis for the Supreme Court to reject their petition for cassation as referred to in the Supreme Court Circular Letter No. 8/2011 on Cases that Did Not Fulfill the Cassation and Judicial Review Requirements (SEMA No. 8/2011). 

Attorney Hulia Syahendra stated that his client had been a litigant in the Rokan Hilir District Court, Riau. The client had won the case at the district court. "However, on the appeal stage, our petition was canceled by the Riau High Court," he explained in the session led by Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo.

When the Petitioners had wanted to appeal, Hulai added, they experienced a delay of more than 14 days and so the cassation brief to be submitted exceeded the deadline. This kept them from being able to file a petition for cassation.

Therefore, in the petitum the Petitioners requested that the panel of justices declare Article 47 paragraph (1) of Law No. 14/1985 on the Supreme Court not fulfilling the provisions for the establishment of laws based on the 1945 Indonesian Constitution.

Responding to the petition, Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat stated that this case was not an issue of norm, but of implementation of the norm. "It is an implementation issue. The Petitioners did not follow the procedure," he explained in Case Number 95/PUU-XVI/2018. According to him, it was not the court\'s mistake but the petitioners\' who filed the cassation brief late.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih stated that the constitutional impairment of the Petitioners was unclear because the Petitioners made a mistake for not fulfilling the article being reviewed. "What is the constitutional impairment? Linked to Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, what is the impairment? You actually made a mistake, which is not following the provisions of Article 47 paragraph (1)," she explained.

Justice Enny also said that the petitum submitted by the Petitioners was unclear. Some words were not in accordance with the legislation. The Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo said that the petition was a private case, because the existing rules were clear but they did not comply. He reminded the Petitioners to be careful not to mix their personal mistakes into the realm of the law that is generally applicable to the public. Justice Suhartoyo added the existing rules were to regulate so that cases did not accumulate in the Supreme Court, and to provide legal certainty so that the resolutions of existing cases do not drag on. (Arif Satriantoro/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)