---

Panel petition revision hearing of the judicial review of the Supreme Court Law, Tuesday (22/9) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held another 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 Tuesday, September 22, 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. He questioned two things: that case review at the Supreme Court can only be filed once, and closed review hearings at the Supreme Court.

In the second hearing, the Petitioner through attorney Bahrul Ilmu Yakup conveyed the addition of Article 1 paragraph (1) of Law No. 2 of 1986 on the Public Court to review. Bahrul said the norm doesn’t explain how the high court decide on cassation cases so the Petitioner couldn’t explain the inaccuracy of the first hearing. Article 28H of the 1945 Constitution was also added as a touchstone and the argument regarding legal standing was revised.

Bahrul explained that the Petitioner felt he had been discriminated against. “As a citizen, the Petitioner feels he deserves the right to fair legal certainty to avoid his property be seized by an arbitrary court. He felt he’d lost his right to his land due to a wrongful judicial process. He felt he couldn’t correct the wrongful court decision and that it was created from closed court proceedings,” he said from Palembang on a video conference.

Also read: Provision on Supreme Court’s Case Review and Hearing Transparency Challenged 

At the preliminary hearing, the Petitioner stated that 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 proven inaccurate after Decision No. 998/Pid.B/2014/PN.TNG dated September 8, 2014 had been 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.

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. He didn’t know about the process and, in turn, didn’t obtain fair legal certainty and protection of his land property from the court

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

Translation uploaded on 9/24/2020 19:05 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.

---