---

The Petitioner’s attorney Bahrul Ilmu Yakup at the judicial review hearing of the Judicial Power Law, Wednesday (9/9) 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 material review hearing of Law No. 5 of 2004 on the Amendment to Law No. 14 of 1985 on the Supreme Court and Law No. 3 of 2009 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 14 of 1985, as well as Law No. 48 of 2009 on the Judicial Powers on Wednesday, September 9, 2020. The petition No. 71/PUU-XVIII/2020 was filed by R. M. Punto Wibisono, who challenges Article 50 paragraph (1), Article 66 paragraph (1), and Article 70 paragraph (2) of the Supreme Court Law, as well as Article 24 paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Judicial Power Law.

Article 50 paragraph (1) of the Supreme Court reads, “Examination to the cassation shall be conducted by the Supreme Court, based on the letters and only if it is deemed necessary, the Supreme Court shall hear the parties or witnesses, or instruct the Court of First Instance or Appeal Court passing judgment upon the case to hear the parties or the witnesses.” Article 66 paragraph (1) reads, “Petition for judicial review may be filed only 1 (one) time.” Article 70 paragraph (2) reads, “The Supreme Court shall pass judgment on the petition for judicial review at the first and final levels.”

Article 24 paragraph (1) of the Judicial Power Law reads, “Against a court decision that has obtained permanent legal force, the parties concerned may file a petition for judicial review to the Supreme Court, pertaining to certain matters or circumstances specified in the law.” Paragraph (2) reads, “A judicial review decision cannot be subjected to a judicial review.”

Through attorney Bahrul Ilmu Yakup, the Petitioner stated that the judicial review petition was driven by a case he had been involved in. He had lost ownership of a land due to a court decision on the civil case No. 257/PDT.G/2008/PN.TNG in conjunction with the Banten High Court Decision No. 80/PDT/2009/PT.BTN in conjunction with the Supreme Court Cassation Decision No. 808K/PDT/2010 in conjunction with the Supreme Court Decision No. 591 PK/PDT/2012.

The decisions were inaccurate after Decision No. 998/Pid.B/2014/PN.TNG dated September 8, 2014 was passed. After finding out about this decision, the Petitioner intended to file a case review petition to correct the previous decisions. However, he couldn’t because Article 24 paragraph (2) of the Judicial Power Law and Article 66 paragraph (1) of the Supreme Court restrict a judicial review petition to only once.

“This restriction clearly harms the Petitioner’s constitutional right to obtain a fair legal guarantee pursuant to Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution,” Bahrul said before Constitutional Justices Suhartoyo (panel chairman), Enny Nurbaningsih, and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh.

Closed Court Trials

The Petitioner also claimed that the Supreme Court’s closed cassation trials on case No. 808K./PDT/2010 and the closed review hearings of case No. 591PK/PDT/2012 had harmed his constitutional rights, when in fact such proceedings should be open to public. He added that the trials were closed because parties with interest in the case hadn’t been present.

“Therefore, the Petitioner didn’t know about the process and, in turn, didn’t obtain fair legal certainty and protection of his land property from the court,” Bahrul said.

Justices’ Advice

Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh requested that the Petitioner explain his constitutional loss due to the law, and not to focus on his civil and criminal cases. “The Petitioner should elaborate on [his] legal standing in relation to his constitutional loss, because the proceedings at the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court are different,” he said. Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih advised the Petitioner to elaborate on his legal standing and his constitutional loss in relation to the concrete cases. Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo also advised the Petitioner on his argument on the norm’s constitutionality.

Before concluding the session, Justice Suhartoyo reminded the Petitioner to submit a revised petition no later than Tuesday, September 22, 2020 at 13:30 WIB to the Registrar’s Office.

Writer: Sri Pujianti
Editor: Nur R.
PR: Tiara Agustina
Photographer: Gani
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 9/15/2020 10:55 WIB

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian version, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---