---

Principal Petitioner La Arta conveying subjects of the petition of the judicial review of the Judiciary Law, Tuesday (29/10) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held a preliminary examination judicial review hearing of case No. 61/PUU-XVII/2019 petitioned by a Southeast Sulawesi resident La Arta on Tuesday (29/10/2019) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. He requested a judicial review of Article 23 paragraph (2) of Law No. 4 of 2004 on the Judiciary and Article 66 paragraph (1) of Law No. 14 of 1985 as amended by Law No. 5 of 2004 and Law No. 3 of 2009 as well as Article 268 paragraph (3) of Law No. 3 of 1981 as a basis to the Formulation of the Supreme Court Circular No. 10 of 2009 on the Submission of Petition for Review.

Without a legal counsel, La Arta conveyed the subjects of his petition before the panel of constitutional justices, which consisted of Constitutional Justices Aswanto (chairman), I Dewa Gede Palguna, and Manahan M. P. Sitompul. He explained that his family and he had a land of 2 hectares in Sombano Village, Wakatobi Regency, Southeast Sulawesi. However, the land was taken by La Ode Abdul Hamid and siblings although La Ode’s parents had acknowledged it as belonging to La Arta’s family.

The Petitioner sued the confiscation to the Bau-Bau District Court but lost the case. According to the Petitioner, his adversary had falsified the land certificates, leading him to take a legal measure in the form of review (PK). After a cassation ruling in the case of land certificate falsification, the Petitioner filed a second PK suit because there was a novum.

The second suit failed due to the Supreme Court Circular No. 10 of 2009. "However, the circular must be declared null and void because there is already a new circular, Circular Letter Number 07 of 2014 concerning the Submission of Petition for Review," La Arta said before the constitutional justices.

According to the Petitioner, the enactment of the circular impaired his rights. "I have explained my losses in the petition. In [past trials] we found an address [that led to the finding] that our adversary used a falsified document. So, we reported it, went to trial, and [received] a ruling. Our adversary was proven to have used a falsified document and the verdict was inkracht and [had been implemented]," said Arta.

The Petitioner found a novum of the Supreme Court\'s ruling regarding the falsification of a document by the Petitioner\'s adversary. As a result, the Petitioner submitted the second PK. However, apparently, there was a subsequent circular stating that the provision had been revoked by the Constitutional Court and was now null and void. "That means that holding our rights is baseless," said Arta. 

Ruled by the Constitutional Court

Deputy Chief Constitutional Justice Aswanto as plenary chairman asserted that the Constitutional Court had ruled the same norms and declared them unconstitutional. He also observed the legal standing. "You should describe the constitutional rights guaranteed in the 1945 Constitution related to your petition, including [that] the norm is contrary to the articles you requested for review. So, if the articles or norms being reviewed are not declared null, then you will continue to experience constitutional impairment. That is not reflected in your legal standing. This needs to be elaborated. It doesn\'t need to be too long, just make it understandable and clear," he said.

Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna commented on the substance of the petition and said that it seemed as if the Petitioner was asking for a hearing on a concrete case. He also observed the format of the petition and requested that the Petitioner consulted anyone who is familiar with the procedural law of the Constitutional Court and how to draft a petition.

Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul stated that the Constitutional Court does not have the authority to revoke the ruling by the Bau-Bau District Court. He also asked the Petitioner to clarify which norms had impaired his rights, be it the Judiciary Law, the Supreme Court Law, the Civil Code, or the Supreme Court Circular. (Nano Tresna Arfana/NRA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

---