Principal Petitioner La Arta conveying the revised petition of the judicial review of Law Number 4 of 2004 on the Judiciary, Monday (11/11) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held the petition revision examination hearing of the judicial review of Article 23 paragraph (2) of Law No. 4 of 2004 on the Judiciary, 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 on Monday afternoon (11/11/2019).

Petitioner of case No. 61/PUU-XVII/2019 La Arta conveyed several points of revision of the petition, including abridging the petition. "Initially my petition amounted to 31 pages. Then, I received the input from the panel of justices, so I tried to reduce it to 15 pages. Actually I wanted only 10 pages," La Arta said to the bench consisting of panel chairperson Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto and panel members Constitutional Justices I Dewa Gede Palguna and Manahan M. P. Sitompul. He also elaborated on the impaired constitutional rights, following the justices’ advice in the previous session.

In response to the revision, Justice Aswanto said, "We had advised you to consult with those who have litigated in the Constitutional Court. We observed that the revision did not clarify your petition, but instead make it more obscure." The petitum does not specify the article that is deemed unconstitutional. Instead, the Petitioner requested that the justices revoke all of the laws that are being petitioned. "In the posita, you only regard a number of articles unconstitutional," Justice Aswanto said.

In the preliminary hearing, La Arta 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 due to 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. (Nano Tresna Arfana/NRA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti