---

Plenary ruling hearing of the judicial review of the Judicial Powers Law, Monday (26/10) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the entire judicial review petition of Law No. 2 of 1986 on Public Courts, Law No. 14 of 1985 on the Supreme Court, and Law No. 48 of 2009 on Judicial Powers at a ruling hearing on Monday, October 26, 2020 in the Plenary Courtroom. The petition No. 71/PUU-XVIII/2020 was filed by R. M. Punto Wibisono, who challenges Article 51 paragraph (1) of the Public Court Law; Article 50 paragraph (1), Article 66 paragraph (1), and Article 70 paragraph (2) of the Supreme Court Law; as well as Article 24 paragraph (2) of the Judicial Power Law against Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28G paragraph (1), and Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

The Petitioner believed the provision of Article 51 paragraph (1) of the Public Court Law doesn’t explain the way the high court examine, hear, and decide on civil or criminal cases at the cassation level. He also argued that Article 70 paragraph (2) of the Supreme Court Law, which reads, “The Supreme Court shall pass judgment on the petition for judicial review at the first and final levels,” should be declared unconstitutional as long as not interpreted to be "The examination process in a case review hearing is carried out in the presence of the litigating parties at a hearing that is open to the public," because constitutionally the case review process is very urgent to be carried out openly, because it examines new evidence whose validity will be higher after verification by the litigating parties and the public.

The Petitioner also argued that Article 66 paragraph (1) of the Supreme Court Law that reads, “Petition for judicial review may be filed only 1 (one) time,” and Article 24 paragraph (2) of the Judicial Power Law that reads, “A judicial review decision cannot be subjected to a judicial review,” have harmed the Petitioner’s constitutional right as stipulated in Article 28G paragraph (1), and Article 28I paragraph (2), and Article 28H paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution.

He also argued that Article 66 paragraph (1) of the Supreme Court Law and Article 24 paragraph (2) of the Judicial Power Law had discriminated against him in a civil case as they had restricted him to only one case review petition, while the Constitutional Court Decision No. 34/PUU-XI/2013 states that someone convicted in a criminal case is granted the constitutional right to file a judicial review petition more than once.

Also read:

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

Petitioner of Case Review Provision Adds Norm to Review

In its legal consideration, the Constitutional Court stated that the Supreme Court is the highest out of four judicial institutions as stipulated in Article 24 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution so that it can examine and decide on different legal implementation than the first and cassation courts. Its authority is expected to produce decisions that offer legal certainty and justice. The Supreme Court’s authority to hear cases based on statutory regulations is clearly stated in Article 13 paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of the Judicial Power Law.

The Constitutional Court also observed that the hierarchical justice system in Indonesia is meant for corrections on the decisions of the lower courts by the higher ones, and for anticipating the judges’ weaknesses in deciding on cases, thus creating opportunities for citizens to seek justice at higher courts when they feel that a judge’s decision is unfair to them.

Justice System in Indonesia

Reading out the Court’s legal considerations, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh said that in Indonesia there are three level of courts: the district courts, the high courts, and the Supreme Court. The district and high courts is judex facti, courts that examine and judge facts.The Supreme Court is judex juris, a court that examines legal implementation. It also is related to cassation cases as it examines legal implementation by judges at the first level (the district courts) and the appellate level (high courts).

“Therefore, it is irrelevant if the Petitioner wanted the cassation and case review hearings or at least a summons of the parties by re-examining the facts, as the first-level and appellate courts had done. This also would violate the principles of expedient, simple, and cost-effective judiciary,” Justice Foekh said.

Exceptional Circumstances

However, even if the judges’ authority at cassation and case review levels are limited to assessing legal implementation and based solely on letters, on certain matters, if the cassation judge deems necessary, they can hear the parties or witnesses themselves or order the appellate court or court of first instance that decides the case to examine the parties or witnesses at an open hearing as stipulated in Article 50 paragraph (1) of the Supreme Court Law.

The law gives the cassation judge the authority to try a case only by examining letters. Only in exceptional circumstances can an examination be carried out by hearing the parties and witnesses or ordering the court of first instance or the appellate court to do so.

"So, it is irrelevant for the Petitioner to want a public case review hearing at the Supreme Court be attended by the parties," Justice Foekh explained before Chief Justice Anwar Usman and the other seven constitutional justices.

In addition, the Constitutional Court could not accept the Petitioner’s argument that the case review can produce validity in the examination of new evidence if it is verified by the parties and the public. Furthermore, the obligation to be present at case review hearings, apart from being costly for justice seekers, will also lead to the accumulation of cases and will hinder the settlement of cases in the Supreme Court.

For those reasons, the Constitutional Court decided that the Petitioner’s petition was legally groundless and rejected in its entirety.

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

Translation uploaded on 10/28/2020 14:59 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.

---