Justice Anwar Usman is chairing a panel judicial review hearing of Judicial Power Law along with Justice Enny Nurbaningsih, Wednesday (7/8/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa

---

JAKARTA, HUMAS MKRI - Oei Halim Wibisono applied for judicial review of six laws (UU) at once as registered through Petition No. 102/PUU-XXII/2024. The laws in question include Law Number 48 of 2009 on Judicial Power, Law Number 49 of 2009 on General Courts, Law Number 3 of 2009 on the Second Amendment to Law Number 14 of 1985 on the Supreme Court, Law Number 14 of 1985 on the Supreme Court, Law Number 18 of 2011 on the Amendment to Law Number 22 of 2004 on the Judicial Commission, and the Herziene Inlandsch Reglement (HIR).

"The Petitioner as the Principal experienced an incident directly; on that basis, the Petitioner filed material [review] regarding the six laws because everything is interrelated because from the first level court to the last court, the Supreme Court, to the judicial review (PK), automatically the norms that we request to test are a lot because of all the interconnection," Halim said in the preliminary examination session on Wednesday, August 7, 2024.

There are at least 14 article norms that are petitioned for review. These articles include Article 50 paragraph (1), Article 53 paragraph (1), Article 53 paragraph (2), Article 41 paragraph (3), and Article 24 paragraph (2) of Law 48 of 2009; Article 178 paragraph (3), Article 184 paragraph (1), and Article 184 paragraph (2) of the Herzien Inlandsh Reglement; Article 20 paragraph (1) letter c, Article 20 paragraph (1) letter d, and Article 20A paragraph (1) letter c of Law 18 of 2011; Article 13E paragraph (1) letter c and Article 13D paragraph (2) letter h of Law 49 of 2009; and Article 66 paragraph (1) of Law 14 of 1985.

Oei was once a plaintiff who filed a civil case dispute with the National Police as the defendant at the Nganjuk District Court (PN). He claimed to be the legal owner of the house/land of Building Rights Title No 15 from the conversion of Eigendom Perponding No 667 (western rights) in the name of the right holder Soen Thjoen Bie whose validity period expired on September 23, 1990, located on Jl Kartini No 11 Nganjuk. The Petitioner purchased it from the heirs of the late Soen Thjoen Bie on January 26, 2012.

On January 26, 2012, the Petitioner had legally received the transfer of the house/state land that had been used as a building right. However, the Petitioner said that it had not been able to occupy it because the house and land, which at that time had the status of Building Rights Title, had been seized by the National Police in 1967. According to the Petitioner, the reason why the Polri seized and then occupied the house in question was that the house in question was abandoned or neglected by the right holder (Soen Tjhoen Bie), whose whereabouts were unknown.

Meanwhile, the Nganjuk District Court rendered a decision in the case filed by the Petitioner by declaring the land being sued as abandoned land. According to the Petitioner, the Judges of the Nganjuk District Court did not follow Article 50 paragraph (1) of Law 48 of 2009, which requires court decisions to contain articles from Law No. 5 of 1960 and Government Regulation No. 40 of 1996 which were used as the legal basis for the Judges of the Nganjuk District Court to hear/decide cases. In addition, the Petitioner mentioned that the Judges of the Nganjuk District Court did not carry out Article 178 paragraph (2) HIR as straightforwardly because they only tried the land and did not try the house building on it and did not carry out Article 53 paragraph (2) of Law 48 of 2009 and Article 68A paragraph (2) of Law 49 of 2009 as straightforwardly as possible.

Then, the Petitioner's lawsuit reached the Supreme Court (MA). However, due to the absence of clear and detailed writing on the format/form of the Supreme Court's civil decision as stipulated in Article 184 paragraph (1) HIR, the Applicant did not receive equal treatment before the law and fair legal certainty. Therefore, the Petitioner requests that the articles submitted for review be declared contrary to the 1945 Constitution.

Justice’s Advice

Petition No. 102/PUU-XXII/2024 was heard by a panel of justices led by Justice Anwar Usman, accompanied by Justice Daniel Yusmic P Foekh and Justice Enny Nurbaningsih. Daniel said that the Petitioner should re-read Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) Number 2 of 2021 concerning Procedure in Law Review Cases in order to understand the requirements for submitting and compiling a petition in accordance with the provisions.

"Because if you read the entire contents of the petition, including what Mr. Oei read earlier, this does not yet illustrate this, my impression is that you are pouring out your anxiety or what you are experiencing, but it does not meet the standard of petition expected by the Constitutional Court in PMK 2 of 2021," said Daniel.

Before closing the hearing, Anwar Usman said that the Petitioner could revise the petition within 14 days. The Petitioner shall submit an amended petition to the Court no later than August 20, 2024, at 13.00 WIB. However, the Petitioners may submit the revised petition earlier than the specified time.(*)

Author: Mimi Kartika
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR: Fauzan Febriyan

Translator: Rizky Kurnia Chaesario

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.

---