Legal counsel Iwan Kurniawan delivering the subject matter of the petition during the preliminary hearing of Case No. 63/PUU-XXIII/2025, Thursday (15/5). Photo by MKRI/Fauzan.
Jakarta (MKRI) – Frendys Eka Luki Putra submitted a material judicial review of Article 162 and Article 206 paragraph (1) of the Legal Procedure Regulations for Area Outside of Java and Madura (Reglement Tot Regeling Van Het Rechtswezen In De Gewesten Buiten Java En Madura (RBg)), promulgated and validated by Emergency Law No. 1 of 1951 on Provisional Measures to Organise the Unity of the Structure of the Powers and Procedures of the Civil Courts, and Article 54 paragraph (2) of Law No. 48 of 2009 on Judiciary (Judiciary Law) against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. The hearing of Case No. 63/PUU-XXIII/2025 was held on Thursday, May 15, 2025.
Legal counsel Iwan Kurniawan stated that in a concrete case, his party has lost the ownership of a land of 632 square meters, which initially was bought from another party under the Deed of the Land Maker Deed Riza Emir Cyrillus Caloh, S.H. No. 57/BON/RC/2003 dated February 25, 2003. The petitioner’s constitutional harms started from the execution and the auction execution conducted by the Head of the Pontianak District Court, Agung Wibowo, who had manipulated the decision of the auction execution by listing the Petitioner’s Ownership Certificate No. 13765 on the Order of Auction Execution No. 74/PDT.G/2003/PN.PTK jo No. 29/PDT/2004/PT.PTK jo No. 2650K/PDT/2004 dated April 25, 2012.
Whereas the Petitioner was not involved at all in the civil case that was executed, and even the vacant plot of land owned by the Petitioner was never placed under execution seizure. As a result, the manipulation made by Agung Wibowo as the Executor was investigated by the Supreme Court Supervisory Board and the Judicial Commission. He was sanctioned to become a non-judge for two years. According to the Petitioner, the enactment of this norm provided an opportunity for a perfunctory judicial process, provided an opportunity for the head of the district court as executor to carry out executions arbitrarily, and created a long-winded judicial process that did not deliver justice.
'The Petitioner requests that the Court declare Article 162 of the Regulation of Legal Procedure for Regions Outside Java and Madura (Reglement Tot Regeling Van Het Rechtswezen In De Gewesten Buiten Java En Madura (RBg)) promulgated and validated by Emergency Law Number 1 of 1951 on Temporary Measures to Organise the Unified Structure of the Powers and Procedures of Civil Courts which reads "The objections raised by the defendant, except those concerning the authority of the judge, may not be raised and considered separately but must be discussed and decided together with the main case' is contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and has no binding legal force as long as it is not interpreted as ‘only judges of the District Court and High Court have the authority to examine, hear and decide on Exception in civil cases’,' Iwan said reading out the Petitum of the Petitioner in a Panel Session led by Chief Justice Suhartoyo together with Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh and Justice M. Guntur Hamzah.
In addition, in his petition the Petitioner also requested that the Court declare Article 206 paragraph (1) of the Reglement of Legal Procedure for Regions Outside Java and Madura (Reglement Tot Regeling Van Het Rechtswezen In De Gewesten Buiten Java En Madura (RBg)) which was promulgated and validated by Emergency Law No.1 of 1951 on Temporary Measures to Organise the Unified Structure of the Powers and Procedures of Civil Courts which reads, "The execution of cases decided by the district court in the first instance shall be carried out by order and under the direction of the chairman in the manner specified in the following articles’ is contrary to the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and has no binding legal force to the extent that it is not interpreted as ‘Execution carried out arbitrarily, unlawfully, and/or to the detriment of third parties who are not parties to the civil case being executed is invalid’.
The Petitioner further requested that the Court declare Article 54 paragraph (2) of Law No.48 of 2009 on Judiciary which reads, ‘The execution of court decisions in civil cases shall be carried out by the court clerk and bailiffs led by the court president’ is contrary to the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and has no binding legal force as long as it is not interpreted as ‘Executions carried out arbitrarily, unlawfully, and/or to the detriment of third parties who are not parties to the civil case being executed are invalid.’
Connection between Articles and Legal Standing
In response to this petition, Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh advised on the concrete case raised by the Petitioner which had not been elaborated on in relation to the article under review. "Is it the whole article or just the phrase. And there must also be a correlation between the posita and the petitum, so that the petition is not vague and the argumentation and impact of the petitum made in this petition need to be built," explained Justice Daniel.
While Justice M. Guntur Hamzah, in his advice, gave notes on the legal standing of the Petitioner that needed to be considered. ‘This concerns concrete events, there is an object of execution which is then auctioned off and there is RBg which is used as the basis for testing such as Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, it is not complete how to contend the desired basis for testing with the enactment of the norm being tested, this is still lacking and needs to be explained so that the petition is not declared vague,’ explained Justice Guntur.
Furthermore, Chief Justice Suhartoyo observed that the petition contained concrete cases, so the norms tested in this case were actually not problematic or fine. "This RBg actually regulates the issue of exceptions that must be decided together with the main case, if the article is asked to be interpreted only by high court and district court judges, will it be able to cover the problems experienced by the principal. While this is narrowed down, the Supreme Court judge cannot judge whether this decision is wrong or not because this will (later) become the authority of the district and high courts. So maybe it needs to be reformulated again," Chief Justice Suhartoyo said.
Before closing the session, Chief Justice Suhartoyo said the applicant was given 14 days to improve the petition. The revised petition could be submitted no later than Wednesday, May 28, 2025 to the Registrar’s office. The Court will then schedule a second hearing with the agenda of hearing the points of improvement of the petition.
Author: Sri Pujianti.
Editor: Nur R.
PR: Fauzan F.
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.
Thursday, May 15, 2025 | 18:41 WIB 321