The Petitioner and the Legal Counsel during the hearing on the revision of petition No. 63/PUU-XXII/2024 in the case of judicial review of Article 30C of Law No. 16 of 2004 on the Prosecutor's Office of the Republic of Indonesia (Prosecutor's Office Law), Article 263 paragraph (3) of Law No. 8 of 1981 on Criminal Procedure (KUHAP), and Article 248 paragraph (3) of Law No. 31 of 1997 on Military Justice (Military Justice Law), Wednesday (7/31/2024). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held another material judicial review hearing of Article 30C of Law No. 16 of 2004 on the Prosecution Service, Article 263 paragraph (3) of Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), and Article 248 paragraph (3) of Law No. 31 of 1997 on the Military Court for petition No. 63/PUU-XXII/2024. In the revised petition, public prosecutor Jovi Andrea Bachtiar added Hartati, a housewife, as Petitioner II in the case.
“The addition of Petitioner II as the heir of PT Bali Rich Mandiri,” Jovi said in the plenary courtroom on Wednesday, July 31, 2024
In the description of legal standing, Hartati is the wife of the late Rudy Dharmamulya. Based on the ruling of the Denpasar District Court Number 337/PDT.P/2015/PN.DPS, Hartati became the heir of the underage children named Richard Dharmamulya, Vanessa Dharmamulya, and Victoria Dharmamulya, entitled to carry out legal actions, including selling the assets of PT Bali Rich Mandiri.
Hartati is a victim of a criminal act of falsifying letters on documents related to the sale and purchase of PT Bali Rich Mandiri assets allegedly carried out by Notaris Hartono, S.H. While the criminal legal process was ongoing, Notaris Hartono, S.H. instead filed a judicial review of Article 30C letter h of the Prosecutor's Office Law at the Constitutional Court to eliminate the prosecutor's authority to file a Judicial Review (PK) which is registered in Case Number 20/PUU-XXI/2023.
In that case, the Constitutional Court granted a judicial review of Article 30C letter h of the Prosecutor's Office Law filed by Notaris Hartono, S.H. without opening the opportunity for the legislators, the Attorney General's Office of the Republic of Indonesia, and Hartati to provide information regarding the urgency of authorizing prosecutors to file a judicial review.
Hartati, represented by Richard in the hearing, explained that the absence of the prosecutor's authority to file a review after the Constitutional Court Decision Number 20/PUUXXI/2023 was an obstacle for Hartati, not only to obtain justice in the sense of criminal law enforcement but also an obstacle for Hartati to control or regain the assets of PT Bali Rich Mandiri which had transferred juridically to other parties who should not have the right to control them. Hartati is hampered or prevented from filing a civil tort lawsuit (onrechtmatigedaad) to regain control of PT Bali Rich Mandiri's assets.
In fact, Richard added, it is clear that there is an error in the application of the Court's law in consideration of the Supreme Court's Judgment of Review Number 41 PK/Pid/2021 (page 32) which cites the formulation of Article 81 paragraph (1) letter b of the Regulation of the Chief of Police of the Republic of Indonesia Number 10 of 2009 in a selective and incomplete manner, resulting in a change in the direction of the final decision, which was originally Notaris Hartono, S.H. based on the Supreme Court Cassation Decision Number 534 K/Pid/2020, legally and convincingly proven to have committed the crime of forgery of letters sentenced to imprisonment, to be declared not proven to have committed the criminal act charged by the prosecutor as the Public Prosecutor in his indictment. As a result, Hartati suffered material losses worth Rp 37 billion. Meanwhile, from the nominal price of the agreed sale and purchase agreement of PT Bali Rich Mandiri shares worth Rp 38 billion, there was only a down payment of Rp 1 billion.
Also read: Prosecutor Asks for Constitutional Authority to Request Judicial Review
The Petitioners ask that Article 30C of the Prosecution Law be rolled back to authorize prosecutors to apply for a judicial review. They wish that the article, as reinterpreted by the Constitutional Court through Decision No. 20/PUU-XXI/2023, which eliminates the prosecutor’s authority to request judicial review, be declared unconstitutional.
In their petitum, the Petitioners request that the Court keep Article 30C of the Prosecution Law in line with the initial formulation before the Constitutional Court Decision No. 20/PUU-XXI/2023 was handed down. However, the elucidation to Article 30C letter h of the Prosecution Law has been amended to read, “The Prosecutor may file a Judicial Review petition as a form of the Prosecution’s duties and responsibilities representing the state in protecting justice for victims, including for the state, by placing the Prosecutor’s authority proportionally in an equal and balanced position (equality of arms principle) with the rights of the convict or his/her heirs to file a Judicial Review petition. The Judicial Review petition submitted by the military prosecution is coordinated with the Prosecution Office. The Prosecutor can carry out a judicial review if, in that decision, the act that was charged has been proven but not followed by a conviction. The Prosecutor as the State Prosecutor/Attorney in Civil and State Administrative affairs may file a Judicial Review petition following statutory laws and regulations.”
Author : Mimi Kartika
Editor : Nur R.
PR : Fauzan F.
Translators : Rizky Kurnia Chaesario, Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
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, July 31, 2024 | 17:54 WIB 59