Chief Justice Suhartoyo delivering a decision in Case No. 102/PUU-XXII/2024 on the judicial review of Law No. 48 of 2009 on Judicial Power, Thursday (29/8/2024). Photo MKRI/Bayu

---

JAKARTA, HUMAS MKRI - The Constitutional Court (MKRI) declared the petition of Case No. 102/PUU-XXII/2024 regarding the judicial review of Law No. 48 of 2009 on Judicial Power inadmissible. This petition was filed by Oei Halim Wibisono, who was once a Plaintiff who filed a civil case dispute with the National Police as the Defendant at the Nganjuk District Court (PN) over a land dispute in Nganjuk.

“The verdict is to declare that the petition of the Petitioner is inadmissible,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo in a decision pronouncement hearing accompanied by eight other constitutional justices in the Plenary Courtroom on Thursday, August 29, 2024.

Justice M Guntur Hamzah said that the Court's legal consideration was that this petition did not elaborate clear and adequate legal arguments regarding the conflict between the norms of Article 50 paragraph (1) of Law No. 48 of 2009, which was petitioned for constitutional review, and the articles that were the basis of the review in the 1945 Constitution. Therefore, it is difficult for the Court to know exactly the conflict between the norms in the tested article and the 1945 Constitution.

“Because, in the posita, the Petitioner actually describes more empirical facts related to legal facts experienced by the Petitioner as a justice seeker in the public judiciary and describes many explanations that are less relevant to the norms petitioned for review so that it blurs the focus of the petition a quo,” said Justice Guntur.

According to the Court, the petition's entire formulation is not in accordance with the provisions of the law of judicial review, in this case, Article 10 paragraph (2) letter d of Constitutional Court Regulation No. 2 of 2021.

To fulfill the requirements for submitting a judicial review of a law, the norms petitioned for review must be declared contrary to the 1945 Constitution and have no binding legal force. This is not included in the petition. Thus, in addition to the posita being vague as considered above and with the Petitioner's petition, which is unusual and not in accordance with the provisions of Article 10 paragraph (2) letter d of PMK No. 2 of 2021, then according to the Court, the Petitioner's posita and petitum are unclear or vague which also results in the Petitioner's petition being unclear or vague (obscuur).

“Considering that because the Petitioner's petition is vague, the legal position, the subject matter of the petition, and other matters are not considered further because they are considered irrelevant,” explained Justice Guntur.

Also read:

A Citizen Tests Six Laws at Once to the Constitutional Court

Land Dispute against the Indonesian Police, A Citizen to Test Judicial Power Law

Article 50 paragraph (1) of Law No. 49 of 2009 reads, “Court decisions must not only contain the reasons and basis for the decision but also contain certain articles of the relevant laws and regulations or unwritten sources of law that are used as the basis for judging.”

According to Oei, some of the norms of Article 50 paragraph (1) of Law No. 48 of 2009 are vague, some are clear, and some are coercive in nature. These norms give judges the power to apply different formats of case decisions. In practice, however, the decisions do not contain certain articles of the relevant laws and regulations or unwritten sources of law that are used as the basis for judging.

The judicial review at the Constitutional Court (MK) stemmed from the fact that 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 ended on September 23, 1990, located on Jl Kartini No 11 Nganjuk. The applicant 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 Police seized and then occupied the house in question was because 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 fully implement Article 50 paragraph (1) of Law No. 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.

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 Petitioner did not receive equal treatment before the law and fair legal certainty.(*)

Penulis: Mimi Kartika
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P.
Humas: Fauzan Febriyan

Translator: Rizky Kurnia Chaesario )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.

---