The legal counsel for the judicial review of Law No. 20 of 1947 on the Regulation of the Appellate Court in Java and Madura conveying arguments for the case, Tuesday (3/15/2022). Photo by Humas MK/BPE.
Wednesday, March 16, 2022 | 09:41 WIB
JAKARTA, Public Relations—Zico Leonard Djagardo Simanjuntak filed a judicial review petition of Law No. 20 of 1947 on the Regulation of the Appellate Court in Java and Madura on Tuesday, March 15, 2022. In the petition for case No. 22/PUU-XX/2022, Simanjuntak challenges Article 7 paragraph (1) and Article 11 paragraph (3) of Law No. 20 of 1947.
Article 7 paragraph (1) of Law No. 20 of 1947 reads, “A request for a re-examination must be filed through a letter or orally by the appellant or his/her representative, who is intentionally authorized to file the request, to the Chief Registrar of the District Court, who shall render a decision within fourteen days commencing from the day following the announcement of the decision to those concerned.”
Article 11 paragraph (3) of Law No. 20 of 1947 reads, “Both parties may submit statements and evidence to the Chief Registrar of the District Court or to the Chief Registrar of the High Court who will decide, provided that the derivatives of the letters are given to the opposing party through an intermediary District Court employee appointed by the Head of the District Court.”
One of the Petitioners’ legal counsels, Asima Romian Angelina, conveyed several points of the background of the petition at the preliminary hearing, which was presided over by Constitutional Justices Suhartoyo (panel chair), Wahiduddin Adams, and Saldi Isra.
“Let me convey the background of the petition, divided into four points. First, no clear deadline of the submission of the statement of appeal and the counter-statement of the statement of appeal in the appellate level in a civil case based on Article 7 paragraph (1) and Article 11 paragraph (3) of Law No. 20 of 1947 has disregarded and violated the concept of constitutional rule of law based on Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia,” said Asima to the justice panel.
She added that the lack of regulation on this deadline has led to legal uncertainty that impaired legal values in the context of the Pancasila law-based state in realizing justice, certainty, benefit, order, peace, security and welfare for the wide public.
The second point is that the unclear regulation on appeal mechanism is in violation of Article 24 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. Article 7 paragraph (1) of Law No. 20 of 1947 does not provide a systematic explanation of the procedure of appeal or re-examination in a court.
Third, Asima added, the appellant can appeal in person or through a proxy. Fourth, the deadline to file for a request of re-examination is 14 days since the day the ruling is pronounced.
Two Different Objects
Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams highlighted the discrepancy in the subject of the petition and the petitum. The subject mentioned Article 7 paragraph (1) of Law No. 20 of 1947. However, in the petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare Article 7 paragraph (1) of Law No. 1 of 1947 not legally binding.
“I really listened to the reading of the petitum earlier. What was requested is Article 7 paragraph (1) of Law No. 1 of 1947, while the subject mentioned Article 7 paragraph (1) of Law No. 20 of 1947. They are different. Law No. 1 of 1947 is the Law on the Extension of the Application of the State Defense Council Regulation. So they are two different objects. This constitutes inaccurate object. So, which one is it? Law No. 20 of 1947 or Law No. 1 of 1947?” he asked.
Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra asked the Petitioners about Article 24 paragraph (1) and Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution.
“Is Article 24 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution about the constitutional rights of citizens or not? Article 1 paragraph (3) is about the rule of law. How would you connect it to constitutional rights? Where do the constitutional rights lie? There is none of it there. That is also the case with Article 24, which is regarding judicial power. So, to argue about constitutional impairment, refer to articles that mention constitutional rights. Please revise it,” he recommended.
Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo stressed that the Petitioners had admitted that the statement of appeal is not a requirement to file an appeal.
“This was admitted by the Petitioners, but the Petitioners requested that within 14 days the statement of appeal must be submitted since the appeal is recorded. The 14-day deadline is also applied for the defendant since they receive the copy of the statement of appeal. Be careful, I am merely reminding you. Please discuss with the [Petitioners] that such a limitation would make it compulsory when, in fact, according to the Petitioners counter-statement of appeal is, by law, non-compulsory,” he said.
Writer : Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor : Nur R.
PR : Tiara Agustina
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 3/16/2022 15:41 WIB
Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.
Wednesday, March 16, 2022 | 09:41 WIB 242