Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat reading out the Court’s legal considerations at the ruling hearing of the judicial review of the Supreme Court Law, Tuesday (12/20/2022). Photo by MKRI/Panji.
Tuesday, December 20, 2022 | 20:02 WIB
JAKARTA (MKRI) — In its verdict for Decision No. 107/PUU-XX/2022, the Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the entire judicial review petition of Law No. 5 of 2004 on the Amendment to Law No. 14 of 1985 on the Supreme Court on Tuesday, December 20, 2022. The petition was filed by Karminah, a housewife from Semarang, Central Java. She challenged Article 79 and Article 31 paragraph (1) of the Supreme Court Law.
The Petitioner questioned the provisions, which gave the Supreme Court the authority to examine statutory regulations under laws, including the Supreme Court regulations, which was not objective and contradicted the principle of nemo judex in causa sua. In its legal considerations, read out by Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat, the Court asserted that such an argument is a mere assumption in relation to the Petitioner’s concrete case at the Semarang Religious Court, which is not within the Constitutional Court’s jurisdiction. What’s more, based on Article 24A and Article 24C of the 1945 Constitution, the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court have their respective authorities. Thus, the Petitioner’s argument is legally groundless.
In Decision No. 129/PUU-VII/2009, the Constitutional Court confirmed that Chapter IX of the 1945 Constitution on Judicial Power regulates the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction in Article 24A and the Constitutional Court’s jurisdiction in Article 24C. If the Constitutional Court reviewed the material of the articles petitioned, it would indirectly examine the material contained in Article 24A and Article 24C of the 1945 Constitution, or the material in the 1945 Constitution. The Court asserted that it does not have such authority. In addition, the petition in this case is similar to a past petition, so the Court’s considerations in this case became mutatis mutandis to those in that case.
“The Court is of the opinion that, as it turned out, Article 79 of the Supreme Court Law and Article 31 paragraph (1) of the Supreme Court Law are not multi-interpretable and have guaranteed fair legal certainty as guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution, so the Petitioner’s petition is groundless according to law in its entirety,” said Justice Arief before the other eight constitutional justices.
Housewife Petitions Supreme Court Provision on Stay of Execution
Petitioner of Supreme Court Law Clarifies Background of Petition
At the preliminary hearing, the Petitioner’s legal counsel Pho Iwan Salomo said Article 79 of the Supreme Court Law has given the Supreme Court unlimited discretion to create regulations while its discretion is not supposed to surpass the Law. The Petitioner also revealed the Decree of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (SK KMA) No. KMA/032/SK/IV/2006 dated April 4, 2006 on a stay of execution, which surpassed the Law.
The Petitioner also revealed that she had filed a petition for execution to the Religious Court of Semarang on the stipulation of the execution of the Religious Court of Semarang No. 002/Pdt.Eks/2016/PA.Smg dated September 1, 2016. Despite having reached the seizure stage, the execution was suspended due to a decree of the deputy chief judge of the Religious Court of Semarang. The Petitioner believes the stipulation of the stay of execution was arbitrary, thus invalid. She believes the deputy chief judge not to have the authority for such discretion.
Writer : Sri Pujianti
Editor : Nur R.
PR : Raisa Ayuditha
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 12/22/2022 10:25 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.