The justice panel listening to the Petitioner’s legal counsel explanation of the revision to the Law No. 20 of 1947 on the Regulation of the Appellate Court in Java and Madura, Tuesday (4/5/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ilham W. M.

---

Tuesday, April 5, 2022 | 17:48 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) held another judicial review hearing of Law No. 20 of 1947 on the Regulation of the Appellate Court in Java and Madura on Tuesday, April 5, 2022. The petition for case No. 22/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by Zico Leonard Djagardo Simanjuntak, who challenges Article 7 paragraph (1) and Article 11 paragraph (3) of Law No. 20 of 1947.

The hearing had been scheduled for revising the petition. Legal counsel Hans Poliman conveyed that the touchstones were reduced to only Article 28D paragraph (1) and Article 28I paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution. Another posita was also added: “the absence of duration for appeals shows the weakness of the current civil procedural law, which is no longer able to keep up with the needs and developments of the times, so that it is contrary to the principle of swift and simple trial.”

To the panel chaired by Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo, Poliman also revealed that the absence had led to lengthy examination of appeal cases as there was no clear duration set for filing statements of appeal.

Also read: Zico Simanjuntak Questions Ambiguity of Provision on Appeal

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.”

At the preliminary hearing on Tuesday, March 15, 2022, one of the Petitioners’ legal counsels, Asima Romian Angelina, conveyed four backgrounds of the petition.

“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,” she said virtually.

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.

Writer        : Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Tiara Agustina
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 4/7/2022 13:31 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.

---