2. The Norm Of The Basic Invite Of 1945 Is a. Article 1 paragraph (3) reads "The State of Indonesia is the State of the Law";

The principle of the state of law is all based on the law. laws to

achieve justice, so that all legal proceedings are the creation of justice in

society When faced with the choice of Justice and the uncertainty of the Law then

10

Justice must be selected and foremost. Thus the effort

The review of the criminal case cannot be limited to just once

in order to seek the justice of the nature for the fate of one to be spared

the sentence of prison criminal sanction or death penalty if by proof

the material is known to then hah is innocent;

So is justice and truth not only belongs to

the party disnumbers the perpetrator if the process is not correct, but also

belongs to a victim of a crime to get justice if the process is not

is right to fight for justice in a way given the right to submit

Review Review;

b. Article 28C paragraph (1) and verse (2) reads

(1) Everyone is entitled to develop themselves through fulfillment of needs

dasamya, entitled to education and benefit from science

knowledge and technology, art and culture To improve the quality of his life and for the welfare of the human race;

(2) Everyone is looking to advance himself in fighting

the rights collectively to the building of society, nation and

his country;

Science and technology expediency is becoming a citizen ' s right

country in order to improve the quality of his life and for the sake of

the well-being of mankind including fighting for justice for oneself

nor anyone else so that the Review effort is back in criminal case

it cannot be Restricted. Only once in order to seek the justice of the essence.

A person's fate to be spared the sentence of a prison criminal sanction or

The death penalty if based on a material proof of known then the day is not

guilty;

It is also in order to fight for the rights of citizens in

collective to build society, nation and country for its guess

justice based on the prevailing laws of law and evolving in

society on the basis of civilized humanity;

So is justice and truth. not only does it belong to

parties that disnumerate the perpetrator if the process is not correct, but also

11

belongs to a victim of a crime to get justice if the process is not

right to fight for justice by being given the right to

submit the Review Again by utilizing science and

technology as is the right to be granted a constitution;

c. Section 28D paragraph (1) reads, "Each person is expressed in recognition, guarantees,

the fair protection and legal certainty of the same recommendations in

before the law";

Article 28D paragraph (1) clearly states that a fair legal certainty so that

a legal certainty without justice then will harm the protection, grant

guarantees and recognition of the same treatment before the law. The law that

only pursues certainty would be futile if it does not provide

justice, the law becomes useless and does not contribute to what-

what is for the welfare of mankind. Thus the Re-Review

in the criminal case if restricted should only once clearly

contrary to the constitution;

So is justice and truth not only belongs to

the party the disnumeral of the crime if the process is not correct, but also

belonging to the victim of a crime to get justice if the process is not

correct to fight for justice by being given the right to submit

Review Return to get recognition, warranty, protection and

certainty a fair and equal law in the presence of the law,

d. Article 28H verse (2) reads, "Any person who gets the ease

and special speciation to obtain the same opportunities and benefits

to achieve equality and justice";

The country does have to want Take care of its citizens in a way

give you a wide-breadth opportunity to search and get

justice so that everyone deserves an easy and profyability

special to acquire the opportunity and benefits that equally to achieve

equality and justice. Thus in the criminal case that

concerns the fate of a person deprived of its independence and the threat of punishment

death must be opened in the vastness of the vastness of justice in the manner

The review is given a chance not only once all the time-

12

terms and reasons are met;

The State may no longer allow the fall of the process.

the wrong law is for the sake of legal certainty. No more

There's a phrase "it's your risk" or "it's your fate, yes accepted only". Country

must care for the fate of one even if only one life is due to justice

every man if tercederai then the founding fathers of the nation for

free of all forms of colonization and well-being. the people

will be slowly buried and our nation returned to the time before

independence;

The judge is an ordinary human who will not miss the error and

the error, then the means to perform a correction must be opened door selebar-

lebamya is an extraordinary legal effort (PK) can be submitted more from once,

can no longer be restricted to once. Justice is the human right of every

the person though it is dead as reflected in the Review of Return in

a criminal case may be filed by the criminal or heir family;

So is justice and truth. not only does it belong to

parties that disnumeral offenders if the process is not true, but also

belonging to the victim of a crime to get justice if the process is not

right to fight for justice with way given the right to apply

Review Return for iiak gets Special ease and special recommendations

to obtain the same opportunities and benefits to achieve

equality and fairness;

e. Article 28I verse (2) reads, "Everyone is entitled to be free of the treatment

is discriminatory on any basis and is entitled to the protection

against that discriminatory treatment";

Justice and truth not only belongs to a party that

disnumbers the perpetrator if the process is not correct so it is granted the right

preferable to submit the Review temporarily in the Criminal Code not

provides Review rights to the Public Prosecutor (JPU) which

be the representation of the victims of a criminal crime although in JPU ' s practice can

submit PK but up to this moment be a debate with

the reason for which there is no legal basis;

13

The victims of the crime are entitled to justice if the process

checks in the court and its decisions are not true or deviated over

the general assessment basis. The right to get the victim's justice is the way

given the opportunity to submit the Review again so that the controls

can be examined, assessed and disconnected the Supreme Court of the Supreme Court. This

also in order to protect crime victims if law enforcement officials

(police, prosecutors and judges) do not provide a sense of justice in which the process is wrong

and deviated as well as not the use of JPU ' s rights (Appeal, Casings) in

order to defend the cause of the victim;

The granting of the victim or heir to submit

The Return Review is in order to grant free rights from the treatment

that is discriminatory over anything and iiak get

protection against the treatment that It's the discriminatory.

VI. The Reasons For The Applicant To Be Prepared For A Review In The A Quo Act Are Contrary To The Constitution Of The Republic Of Indonesia 1945 Because :

1. That Section 28C paragraph (1) and verse (2) reads " everyone is entitled

developing themselves through the fulfillment of the needs of the dasamya, entitled

education and benefits from science and technology, art

and culture To improve the quality of his life and for the welfare of the faithful

man and every single person to advance himself in

fight for his rights collectively to build a society, nation

and his country ". Thus in order to find the truth to

to justice then every citizen deserves the benefit of science

knowledge and technology for example DNA tests and polygraph tests as well as any

citizens advance the herself to get justice included

the struggle collectively to build society, nation and

her country;

2. That Article 1 paragraph (3), Section 24 of the paragraph (1), and Article 28D paragraph (1) Invite-

Invite the Basic State of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945 declare Indonesia

as a legal state, provide recognition, guarantees, protection and

14

fair legal certainty against any citizen of the law and

justice;

3. That relating to the law is referred to, Aristotle in his book (vide Dr.

Krisna Harahap, S.H., M. H; which is titled " Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. Since

Proclamation to Reform ", Publisher PT. Grafitri Budi Utami, Bandung 2004,

page 11), asserting the state of the law is the state that stands above

a law that guarantees justice to all its citizens. Further

Aristotle stressed that the ruling in the country is not

man, but a fair mind, whereas the ruler only holds the law

and a mere balance;

4. That right to get justice is the right of every citizen without

except especially the citizens who are fighting for justice

(yustitiabelen) and anyone should not be deterred from citizens or seekers

Justice to get justice. In relation to such justice

Prof. Dr. Moh. Mahfud MD, S. H; in his book entitled "Building

Political Law, Enforcing Constitution", Pustaka LP3ES, Jakarta, 2006, pages

187 and 188 states that Indonesia as a legal country especially

in a material sense see that the law is not just a formal

set by the legislature but whose justice value is made thing

is important;

5. That according to Prof. Dr. Jimly Asshiddiqie, S.H., the presence of protection

constitutional against human rights with legal guarantees for the demands

affirm it through a fair process. Protection of human rights

The human being is widely public in order to promote

respect and protection against human rights as a hallmark of

an important democratic legal country;

6. That Prof. Jimly Asshiddiqie. S. H asserts related, "The equation in

the law" (equality before the Law), the equality of each person

in law and government, which is recognized normatively and exercised

empirically. In order to the principle of this equation. any attitude and action

discriminatory in all its forms and manifestations are recognized as attitudes and

actions that are purposed, except actions that are special and

15

while named affirmatife actions to drive and

accelerate certain community groups to pursue progress so

achieves the same level of development and equivalent to the group

a society that is already much more advanced;

7. That then the principle of Human Rights and the principle of equality of rank

in law (equality before the law) is outlined in Article 24 of the paragraph (1) and

Article 28D paragraph (1) of the Basic Law of the Republic of Indonesia of Indonesia Year

1945, Based on the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of the Republic

Indonesia Year 1945 which is used as a test tool, contains the essence:

-Periu of the equation in the law (equality before the law); and

-Principles justice;

8. That it is the duty of the whole community to act as well as to hold

social control of the unaligned rules of the Invitation

to the sense of justice and to not bring benefits to the wider community as well as

inhibits the creation of legal certainty;

9. That the equation in the law (equality before the law) and the principle of justice

has been eliminated by the provisions restricting the submission of the Review Again

for the second time and only the public and criminal or expert prosecution Its legacy

has the right to submit a review law effort again

as set out in the provisions of the Act, which is being moved to

being tested so that the applicant is unable to enjoy justice in front of the law as

Indonesian citizens [vide Article 28D paragraph (1) of the State Basic Law

Republic of Indonesia in 1945);

10. That there is a real example of the elimination of the right of the victim or victim's family due to

the enactment of Article 1 of 12, Section 263 of the paragraph (1) and Article 268 of the paragraph (3) Invite-

Invite Number 8 Year 1981 on Criminal Events Law:

Efforts a law of re-review carried out by " victim of crime

(saks/victim Prof. DR. Dr. Ida Bagus Gede Manuaba, SP.OG) against

The Supreme Court of Justice Number 1991 K/Pid/2001 dated July 02, 2002

which has a fixed legal force (inkracht van gewijsde) where

Supreme Court through Number 11 Termination PK/PID/2003 dated August 6

2003, declared that Re-Review was not able

16

received with the basis of consideration as follows:

a. That the review objections were submitted by

The review of the review review Prof. Dr. Ida Bagus Gede Manuaba,

Sp. The OG is not justified, because the applicant for review

return is as the party of the victim not authorized

submit a review request, by Article 263 paragraph (1)

KUHAP, where the application is return review can only be filed

by the penal or his deputy;

b. That the applicant review in this case is a witness

the non-authorized authoring to submit a review

return, not the penal or his heir, then the reasons

Another review is not The periu is considered again;

c. That based on such considerations is above then

request a review of the review applicant again is not

reasonable enough to be declared inadmissible;

11. That the victim's position was less noticed due to the legal provision

Indonesia is still resting on protection for the perpetrator (offender orientied).

When, from criminological views and criminal law of crime is conflict

between individuals who pose a loss to the victims, the public and

the offenders themselves where from all three groups are the victims ' interests crime

is a major part of the crime where according to Andrew Ashworth, "primary an

s against the victim and only secondarily an offense against the wider

comunity or state";

12. That the applicant I was a family of victims of the murder of a murder plan

that befell the aim. Andi Nasruddin Zulkarnaen and the applicant II are Members

The Victims ' Family Advocacy Team. The applicant is not convinced of Antasari Azhar

as the perpetrator to the disappointments of the Criminal. Then a review

Back can be submitted by the victim and or her family as well as the Review

Back can be submitted more than once. As provided

rules applicable, Rejuvenation can only be filed criminalized and

or his family as well as Rejuvenation can only be submitted once;

17

13. That aim. Andi Nasruddin Zulkarnaen during his lifetime was the Director

Main PT. The son of Rajawali Banjaran who was later killed by the assassin

the payment in which the alleged murder mastermind was declared in

the court was Antasari Azhar who was the Chairman of the KPK at the time;

14. That the Pernohon sought to:

a. Re-Review Should Be Submitted By The Victim and or

His family including the heir

1) KUHAP set the Prajustice may be carried out by a third party

in the interest of being interpreted including the victim of a criminal offence, whereas

Rejuvenation may only be filed by the criminal or by the expert

The heir, then should the Return Review should be allowed

filed by the victim of the criminal and or his family recalled

the party Severely affected by the occurrence of a Criminal Tindak is

Victim and or Families of the Victims;

2) That the Public Prosecutor may submit an Appeals Law Effort,

Cassation and Review Again, but if the Public Prosecutor

does not want to apply for the Appeal Laws, Cassation and Review

Back while the victim and or the victim's family were not satisfied because

feeling the actual culprit has not been revealed, can only be pasrah and

should be able to accept the verdict, due to the review law effort

re not able to submitted by victim and or victim 's victim' s family

criminal;

Against the Court ' s Termination First Level (State Court),

The Appeal Level, not performing legal efforts while the victim is not

satisfied, should the victim be able to submit a Review by the Law Review

Back against the Verdict

3) The Victim entitled to recover damages from a criminal offender, but

if the victim is convinced the distrauble person is not the perpetrator

in fact, then to get the victim's conviction can

submit the Review Again.

4) The protection of the victims of the crime is abstract protection or

indirect protection formulated in the formulation policy

18

i.e. protection from where it tends to lead to protection

society and individuals. Victims as parties to be harmed by an

terisolir crime or no concern at all, more

with increased attention to criminal coaching that

is often interpreted as something which is not related to

fulfillment of the victim ' s interests, then it is not surprising if

attention to victims is getting further away from the criminal justice by

Sthepen Sc/iafer is said to be the Cinderella of the criminal law.

His attitude, protection against the victims of an important existential crime

by Due to the victim's agony as a result of a crime is not over.

With the drop and the punishment for the perpetrator.

5) With such a turning point then the criminal justice system is

adjusting, the quality of the quality and the quantity of suffering and

the loss suffered by the victim. In the Indonesian Judicial System then

the victim's alienation may also be felt as if

still a lack of discussion on the victim, the criminal law law

has not yet fully set up about the victim and the its right

as an aggrieved party and so forth. In passing,

setting the victim of a crime in positive law according to the system

The Indonesian criminal justice covers the provisions of Article 14c paragraph (1) of the Book

The Penal Code of Laws (KUHP) which reads the complete

as follows:

" On that order in Section 14a except in terms

dropped criminal fines, then together with the general condition,

that the convicted person, the judge may have a special condition

that The people who are convicted will compensate for the loss.

due to the criminal offense, everything or part of it, which would

be determined at the order determined on that too. less than

the probation period. "

6) The provisions as such above circumvve that exist

abstract or indirect protection granted the Act

as a formulation policy to the victims of the crime. Protection

19

that includes a penalty drop by a judge with a set up

general terms and special terms of being determined to be reimbursed

loss inflicted on the victim;

7) But it turns out this aspect Abstract or protection is not

directly due to the special nature of the replacement

loss is facultative. It depends on the judge Therefore,

with the principle of individual balance and society (asas

monodualistic) should be protection against the victims of the crime

in the Book of Criminal Law (KUHP) its nature is imperative.

Then in The Law No. 8 Year 1981 of the Book

The Criminal Proceed Law Act (KUHAP) has already begun

individual victim protection, by staying coaching

to the perpetrator of the crime;

8) Protection the victim in this context means it remains put

the victim ' s interest as one of the absolute sections that

is considered in the process of solving criminal cases such as

the victim allows to control a case that

puts himself as the victim in which to make an effort

pretrial if a case is terminated with the investigation or its downfall

and the Return Review by the victim or victim's family if the victim

or the victim's family does not believe it, where the perpetrator is not

the perpetrator of the crime. real criminal;

9) A victim of a crime can be present in the process

examination of criminal cases with two different qualities. At one

the presence of the victim's presence in criminal case checks works

as a witness to provide testimony in revealing

a crime that is in the process of vetting, both in stages

the investigation, Prosecution or examination in court proceedings.

On the other side of the victim's function in the criminal proceedings is

filing a claim for damages for suffering and loss that

suffered as a result of the crime. In addition, the victim in his capacity

as a witness is passive in the sense that the victim is only present when dlask

20

and also his role is limited to only providing information about

something seen, heard and addressed to himself;

10) It is one of the forms of protection because

granted it the right This control may provide a guarantee that the case

the criminal is intended to be resolved under the legal provisions

applicable. Furthermore, the KUHAP also gave an opportunity to

the victim to file a signed loss suit

with a criminal case concerned as provisions of Article 98

up to Article 101 of the KUHAP;

11) Consideration Of MK Verdict Number 76 /PUU-X/2012 pp. 41 points (3.15):

"Criminal Law to protect the common interest". but with

the Review provision returns only once it closes the opportunity for

looking for a true criminal offender, so that the goal

defend General interest is not achieved, wrong unpunished who

innocent sentenced, victims continue to fall. Thus for

looking for truth and justice then automatically the victim and or

her family must be given the opportunity to submit a Review

Back against the case in question;

b. Review Can Be Submitted More Than Once

1) The Return Review does not block the execution, so as to

find the materiel truth, then the Review is able

submitted more than once throughout the discovery novum;

2) Prosecutors may submit a review (in case of Joko

Candra), should the Registered Review by the Criminal Also can

be submitted more than once. If after the Restatement of Review

the criminal remains found guilty then appears novum

is believed to be the truth, what legal steps should be placed unless

Review Again;

3) Criminal Law to protect the general interest, provided

Rejuvenation only once then closes the opportunity to seek

A true criminal offender, so that the purpose of defending

general interest is not achieved automatically Re-review can be

21

is submitted more than once;

4) In the rules of the old Invitation (before KUHAP)

that is in reglement op de strafvordering and the Court of Justice

the Great Number 1 Year 1969 as well as the Regulation Supreme Court No. 1

In 1980 there was a provision that should submit

a review request was the attorney general, convict or

of the interested party. It can be believed that the idea that

contained in the old Invitation remains

a source of inspiration in formulating the provisions of the KUHAP. The

for example if a review request could be re-received

was also filed by the victim and or heir;

15. That the purpose of the law of the criminal event, is to seek and obtain,

or at least close to the veracity of the material, i.e. the full truth-

the full body of a criminal case, by applying the provisions of the law

An honest and precise criminal event, with the intention of finding who

an unassuming perpetrator committed a legal offence and

next request a trial and verdict from the court, in order

find out if evidently a criminal offence has been committed and whether

the person charged with it can be blamed, then KUHAP must

be maximally used to obtain the correctness of metariil by means

flex or develop or perform an extensive interpretation

against its provisions, in casu specifically Article 263 of the KUHAP, with

providing the opportunity to the Attorney General, the victim of a criminal offence

and other interested parties to submit the Review Again. By

since it needs to shift the perspective of criminal events legal events, from

offender oriented to victim oriented and from justice retributive to

justice restorative or justice sociological;

16. A true story in the US developed world (USA) in the book story The

Innocent Men (not guilty) Works by John Grisham in which the perpetrator who was about to

sentenced to death is finally null and void after filing a Repetition attempt

(can be understood as ReReview). Book of the novel to one

integral part of the matter a quo (vide proof P. 13);

22

Synopsis Book (http://bukufanda.bloqspot.com/2011/06/innocent-man.html)

Muak-horrified-geram at the beginning. Tired of replacing him in the middle. But

nearing the end, trenyuh and concerned are changing grinning in the chest. Finally I

up to the question: Will there be justice in this world? All that impression

I get when reading John Grisham's a

true story: The Innocent Man;

If you believe that the person (in America) is innocent, until stated

guilty, this book would surprise you;

If you believe the death penalty, this book will harass you. If you believe

the criminal justice system is fair, this book will ignite your anger;

That night, December 7, 1982, a murder took place at Ada, a small town

in the state of Oklahoma, America. Victim's girl Debbie

Carter, a waitress at a bar named Coachlight. The next day Debbie

found lifeless after being raped in her own apartment. As of

regular, the investigation process is soon held. Evidence secured, witnesses.

(men of course) were interviewed and asked to hand over samples of fluids

bodies, like the kind of criminal procedure that we often read/watch.

Bedanya, in this case the police immediately became depressed because after all

the long-running procedure was traversed, no visit of any one

suspect;

Then began they put out "creativity" they are by dragging

a man who is already famous as "troublemaker" because he likes to get drunk-

manot and make a fuss at the bar. The reason is easy: Ron

Williamson, the man ' s name, is a suspect whose chances are

committed the crime. It must have been that night that he was drinking heavily, and he was staying at the

Debbie's apartment. Something that was supposed to be just alleged, suddenly

developed into a police obsession to quickly establish the Review

Back of the suspect. Is there any witnesses who saw Ron coming home with Debbie

-Rtu night? Nothing. Has anyone seen him near Debbie at the bar? Not

exists. Or at least have anyone seen Ron in Coachlight that night? No

remembers. And then? No problem. Ron ' s a very good suspect, now

stay get a confession from him. What if he doesn't admit?

23

that he killed Debbie? No problem. The police will be terroring it with

benches and a persuasive threat to a point. Even the person

who is steadfast will give up and make a confession that

is weak. No problem. There must be other inmates who could be threatened to brag

in court that they heard Ron claim to have killed Debbie.

All of that could be engineered. The important police have been on assignment;

Muak. Cringe. Geram. Sick of looking at the lazness and folly of police in

doing the task. Horrified by the fact that the law enforcement agency made

someone innocent of the murder suspect. Geram reads that

The folly and injustice it is done is almost blatant and known

almost everyone, but only didiamated alone. While the police, who

concluded that the crime was certainly done 2 people, succeeded anyway

dragging a friend Ron: Dennis Fritz. Klop was already;

In the meantime, the story then rolled on Ron's ironic life.

All his life Ron had only one dream, ambition and obsession,

that's on baseball. Her 180 cm and athletic body support, Ron, who

is selfish for always being pampered as a child, having no trouble starting the road to

a professional baseball player in the big leagues. When it seems sacrifice

the Williamson family against the spoiled youngest will bear fruit

bliss, come the painful news. Ron suffered a shoulder injury

which forced him to stop playing baseball forever. Ron never

adults unable to accept the reality of his dream should be pupus, precisely when he

barely made it through the big leagues and became a famous baseball player like

the idols that were on the baseball cards collection The hospitality. Ron then fell to the "precipice of liquor", and suffered from mental illness. And in the circumstances

Thus, Ron was set foot to the Pontotoc County jail as

killer ...

Although not as dramatic as Ron's life, Dennis Fritz had to let go

life as a happy husband and father, just because of the fact that she

was a friend of Ron's and had been drinking with her. With the same

technique, the police finally managed to ensnare Dennis to the prison as well. Only

needs a trial with a dozen fake witnesses, the complainants, prosecutors

24

An arrogant prosecutor and a less conscientious judge, then Ron and Dennis are official

being an inmate. Dennis is with a life sentence, and Ron with

penalty of death.

In this section, the story becomes flat. I got tired of reading up the drop

Ron's condition was so fast, but with certainty the graph was headed to

down. The imprisonment is indeed a torture for all who experience it, but

for a mentally ill like Ron, it means taking the life of an

man is probally. And it 's not only because of the prison itself but

also the randomness of all the parties that are terioing in it against mental health

and Ron' s physio. And it happened for twelve years. Imagine, twelve

years of spending life in prison when you did nothing!

Thank you there are people like Barry Schenck and Mark Barrett who are active in

the foundation that cares for the uncapable people who are experiencing judicial

that is bad. They worked closely with medical workers who were moved by

conscience championed Ron's fate to be removed from health care;

Thanks to their sense of justice, Ron and Dennis were finally entitled

get the trial. The new justice, which is (Rejuvenation) more

is clean;

In these final parts is the story back to heat. I can imagine

how Ron and Dennis ' feelings are facing the news that gives

this great hope. After a dozen years in prison and the appeal of appeal

they were rejected everywhere, there was almost no hope of a single piece of goods

that they would be able to re-breathe free air. Now it's a glimmer of hope at the end of that long hallway;

Is that light real? What if it turns out that the trial was full

a lie like at a hearing ago? This is where my emotions are adduct-stirred

between expectations and concerns. Hope that finally, justice will

be enforced. As well as the concern that expectations were gassed for

the second time it would have been more to make Ron and Dennis go down.

Thank you, Judge Seay has enough courage to break down the system that

wrong;

And Finally the trial begins. Second trial of Debbie Carter's murder.

25

has taken place 14 years ago. Happy is Ron and Dennis after they

declared free? Of course. But what makes me trendy is

their struggle to be able to go back to society, live that

normal-miss twelve years in prison is one thing, but must

start life back after falling behind twelve years is another thing that

could be more alarming. For a bit of a strong character like

Dennis, they ' ll make it through. But for people who are not

can ever be independent and fully mature like Ron, that freedom feels

your seam. That's what I think is the greatest sin of an untruthful judicial process.

Not just the wasted time in prison, but the imprisonment could be

ruining a person's life fully until the end of his life. If you don't

believe reading Ron's last words before he dies, which

makes me cry ... " ... I once asked myself what the reason I was

was born, when I was sentenced to death row, if I had to go through all of it?

What is the reason of my birth? I almost curse my father and mother-evil once-

for making me born into this world. If I have to do all of that

again. I don't want to be born.

Very miris that people have lamented their own birth to this world.

And that's because a bunch of reckless law enforcement officers can't afford to enforce the law fairly. So ... is justice still there? Sure

only! Judges Seay, Mark Barrett and Barry Scheck are real examples.

The Ron case may have been a turning point for the start of the legal process that

is better. And if so, it might have been Ron's sacrifice for nothing,

Ron's birth to the world instead of aimless. It has to experience

all of it, in order for more people to feel justice.

It is possible ...

Which makes the book feel special is their photos stuck

in this story. There ' s a cute Debbie Carter photo, and a lot of pictures of Ron. In

The photo you could compare when Ron was just charged, and when Ron

got out of jail. You wouldn't believe that half-time is just 12

years! John Grisham's Salut, who came out of his habit of writing fiction.

Although it may be more "heboh", but isn't it just fiction?

26

The injustice of the real people, will instead be able to overturn

reverse your emotions, and finally make this book more attached to your heart

you. Four stars for you, John.

17. That Indonesia is not about the Anglo Saxon system in which the trial may be

repeated many times like the United Kingdom and the United States as

true story The Innocent Man and the Court of Appeal against the Husni case

Mubarak former Egyptian President (vide proof P. 11 and proof P. 12), but for

approaching the materiel truth as applicable in developed countries and

the renewal of the KUHAP then review (Review) can

be submitted by the victim and or his heir as well as a review

(Review Again) can be submitted more than once;

18. That in accordance with the practice of jurisprudence that has been running, the Court

the Great Rl, has done extensive interpretation in the form to growth

the moaning or over rule against the provisions of The existing imperative

in the KUHAP. An extensive interpretation in the form of to growth the meaning or

overrule against the provisions of the KUHAP, is reviewed from doctrine.

The nature of the nature of the very

statement is profiled to obtain a more fair resolution, reviewed from

aspects of general interest and more hakiki sense of justice demands.

humankind known as "according to the principle of justice";

19. That the purpose of the law of the criminal event, is to seek and obtain,

or at least close to the veracity of the material, i.e. the full truth-

the full body of a criminal case, by applying the provisions of the law

An honest and precise criminal event, with the intention of finding who

an unassuming perpetrator committed a legal offence and

next request a trial and verdict from the court, in order

find out if evidently a criminal offence has been committed and whether

the person charged with it can be blamed, then KUHAP must be

maximally used to obtain the correctness of the metariil by means of

flex or develop or perform an extensive interpretation

against its provisions;

27

20. That the purpose of the event's law is in line with the doctrine that

evolves, i.e. that the victims of the criminal acts are entitled to

using the legal effort/rechtmiddelen (Arif Gosita and JE's

Sahetapy's views), The Supreme Court is the victim's protection

crime, which is essentially a community interest but what

that it does in judicial practice often does not meet the sense of justice

for the seeker. Justice. Thus, for victims of the crime to be able to be able to

be given a legal effort, and based on jurisprudence above, then the efforts

the law made possible is Review Again;

21. That the protection of the victims of the crime in making a legal attempt

The existence is very important given the basis of empirical study.

The victim's reaction to the court ruling judged to be unsuitable for the sense of

justice. whereas from other dimensions it turns its own victims unable to do

something to test the ruling because the existing law does not provide

the chances of making a legal effort against the court ' s ruling. Contrary

of the above dimensions then there is a constraint of the victims ' protection manifests

through procedural rights. However, the procedural rights arrangement

can be reached by an assertive setting about the nature of authority

The public prosecutor who is essentially a party representing

the interest of the victim's good people. collective and individual.

In relation to the procedural rights of the crime victims may refer to

the right of the victim to submit a pre-trial against the termination of the inquiry

nor the prosecution as well known in the Indonesian positive law. Point

reject in that aspect it is ideally in determining the prosecution to

The perpetrator needs to be included to give his opinion.

Similarly, in assessing the court ruling whether it has been Appropriate

the sense of justice or not. In addition, protection efforts against

victims can also be carried out through a simplification in the judicial process

the criminal who according to positive law in Indonesia is three levels: the judiciary

first level (Court Country). second or judicial level courts

the appeal level (High Court), and the judicial level (Court

Supreme Rl), even more with the extraordinary legal efforts of cassation

28

for the sake of legal interest and a review application against the ruling

the court which has acquired the power of the law remains (inkracht van

gewijsde). Given from a protection perspective to the perpetrator, the intended process

is indeed badly needed;

22. That right to get justice is the right of every citizen without

except especially the citizens who are fighting for justice

(yustitiabelen) and anyone should not be deterred from citizens or seekers

Justice to get justice. In relation to such justice

Prof. Dr. Moh. Mahfud MD, S. H; in his book entitled "Building

Political Law, Enforcing Constitution". The library of LP3ES, Jakarta, 2006, pages

187 and 188 states that Indonesia as a legal country especially

in a material sense sees that the law is not only a formally

set of Review by the institution The legislature but the value

The justice was made an important thing;

23. The law enforcement (law enforcement) means affirmation of justice (justice

enforcement) and truth. Here, the concept of the state of law is meant to be materiel

so that its primary reference is not only the law that is embraced

in the sense of legism but fair law. The legal certainty here

must be placed in the framework of justice enforcement (justice enforcement),

so that if either of the two are not in line, then the justice should

be won, because the law is a tool. to enforce justice

substantial (materiil) in the community, not the tool to seek a win

formally;

24. That criminal law enforcement processes have not been leveraging

up to the maximum science and technology in particular DNA tests, ballistic science and

lie tests that allow the discovery of the truth if true-

coincidably utilize science and technology in the times that

comes;

25. That any crime would provide a true door to the truth

for example, the true perpetrator/killer would

give recognition later as a form of regret and

29

penance. so the law should still give its doors to

get the truth and justice;

26. That lately it's very popular term " Criminalization " which refers to the attempt

grants the status of the perpetrator of the crime against the person he seeks error

but it is not clear what his faults are. Criminalization can only be done by

"Ruler and or Employers" for being able to move the apparatus of the apparatus

the law enforcement with power and or the money. that in taters

democracy is used to bestows opposition or brave people

against injustice and the arbitrariness of "Ruler". The Constitutional Court

The Constitution has done the right thing to prevent criminalization efforts

against the proposed plea of Candra Marta Hamzah and Samad Bibit

Riyanto (head of the KPK time it). Criminalization may befall anyone

including the Petitioners and the Judges, and are very detrimentalized if it overcomes

those who dare to defend justice and truth against the injustice

"Ruler". With the basis of justice and truth will be approachable and

the deacon if the "Ruler" has collapsed or is not in office again, so

The Re-release of the Review Law can be submitted more than once will

give the door to the justice seeker who is blamed for engineering

criminalization;

27. That "Kriminalization" effort can take on the silver lining of the Sri Star case

The Pamungkas have been criminalized by the New Order Ruler, where the time

has traveled the review effort. After the New Order's ruling

falls, Sri Bintang Pamungkas cannot submit Review Again

whereas based on new values what it does is not a crime.

Finally the President of Rl President Habiebie can only give Gration without

could touching the root of the truth and damages, but even worse

Sri The Pamungkas star is retired early by the Ut institute. With the opening of the door

The Return Review effort can be submitted more than once, we all

can prevent casualties such as Sri Bintang Pamungkas-Sri Bintang Pamungkas

others;

28. That based on the provisions of the Constitutional Power Constitution is independent and

free from other powers, but in reality we should not close

30

The Justice Power ' s eyes could not be detached from the intervention of power and

money. The history of the Roman Empire clearly illustrates

the power intervenes in law and justice. Book by Robert Harris

"IMPERIUM, a novel" Publisher PT. Gramedia Pustaka Utama, Jakarta,

2008, page 34, contains the story of a Roman Empire senator whose core contains

" The power is sought by many to get two things, First: can

take whatever the origin is still within limits, and Second: the

more promising is manipulating the legal process " (vide proof P-15);

29. That the review is to include an extraordinary legal effort and not

obstructing the execution of the (execution) ruling, thus already

should not be restricted once. It is very basic as

M. Yahya Harahap's opinion of the certainty of the law of sacrificing justice

and the truth in his book " Severity and Implementation

KUHAP-Examination of the Court of Appeal, Appeal, Cassation, and Review

Back " Second Edition, Publishing Sinar Grafika, Fourth Print, October 2002

(plus), page 640, with the question: How is fate and justice

that befell A in such a thing? A forced pasrah on the fate of which

is sanctated by principle for the sake of legal certainty. (vide proof P. 16);

30. That the restriction of review submission is returned with only limited once

only as Article 268 of the paragraph (3) of the KUHAP collided and or was not aligned

with the asas nebis in idem, meaning that with the principle nebis in idem automatic

The submission of the Review is not based on a new state (which is different

with a previous new state) by itself will be rejected by the institution

the Supreme Court of Justice. Thus throughout the submission

Review based on a new state that is clearly different from

a new state submitted review earlier then for

justice and truth must be accepted the process His submission to the Court

the Great through the State Court of Sepremises;

31. That according to the South Jakarta State Court of Justice against the Defendants

Antasari Azhar and Sigid Haryo Wibisono dkk have been filed for a change request

losses by Mrs. Nyr. Harinda (wife alm. Nasrudin Zulkarnaen) through power

laws of Irene Harsono, SH on 19 January 2010 with construction

31

at the event of the aim of the aim. Nasrudin Zulkarnaen inflicted a loss for

the bereeved family, but the Assembly of Judges ruled the lawsuit

A request for damages coupled with a criminal case could not be

received. This must be understood the assembly of judges had doubts or not

sure in giving the guilty verdict of the defendant Antasari Azhar

dkk. evidently not accepted by the recipient's acceptance of a loss that

combined with the pidation case. Thus to obtain

justice and truth including a damages suit filed the victim

or his heir then it should be the victim or his heir being given the right

to submit the Review Again To convince himself and

get evidence of the actual crime in order to submit

A change in the loss is not one of his own. State should not mispunish

perpetrators of crimes and victims or heirs may not be more wrong for

filing a damages suit for a crime-crime event

persecution or murder; (vide evidence P. 17);

32. That to answer and provide a solution of truth and justice,

The efforts of the Re-Review are due to be put forward by the victim

and or her heirs and may be filed more than once with the provisions

based on the reason for new evidence (novum) that is correct and

is accounted for;

VII.Petitum

1. Accepts the invocation of the applicant entirely;

2. Article 263 paragraph (1) Act Number 8 of the Year of 1981 on KUHAP:

a. Article 263 paragraph (1) Act No. 8 of 1981

on the Law of Criminal Events " Against the Court ruling that has

obtained a fixed legal force, unless a ruling is free or off of

any lawsuit the criminal or his heir may submit

a request for review to the Supreme Court " contradictory

with the 1945 Constitution if it is given the right to submit the Review

Back does not include the victim or his heir;

b. Declaring Article 263 paragraph (1) Act No. 8 Year 1981

32

on Criminal Event Law: " Against the Court ruling which has

obtained a fixed legal force, unless a verdict is free or loose of

any criminal or heir legal claim may submit

A review request to the Supreme Court " does not have

binding legal force if it is defined as the right to submit the Review

Return does not include the victim or its heir;

c. Article 263 paragraph (1) of the Law No. 8 Year 1981

on the Criminal Event Law further reads " Against the ruling

The court which has obtained the legal force remains, unless the ruling

is free or off of all charges of law, penal or heir

and his victims or heirs can submit a review request

return to the Supreme Court ".

3. Article 268 paragraph (3) Act No. 8 of 1981 on KUHAP:

a. Article 268 of the paragraph (3) of the Law No. 8 of 1981

on the Law of Criminal Events reads: "Request for Review of Return of the above

a ruling can only be done one time" contrary to

Constitution of 1945 if Nai is not excluded for the reason of the discovery

new circumstances (novum);

b. Article 268 of the paragraph (3) of the Law No. 8 of 1981

on the Law of Criminal Events reads: "Requests of the Return Review

a ruling can only be done one time only" does not have

the power of the law which Binding if the meaning is not excluded from

the reason for the discovery of a new state (novum);

c. Article 268 of the paragraph (3) of the Law No. 8 of 1981

on the Law of Penal Event has further read: " Request

The review of a ruling can only be performed only one time

except for the reason the discovery of a new state (novum) can be submitted

more than once ".

4. Ordering the loading of this ruling in the Republic News of the Republic

Indonesia as it should be;

If the Constitutional Assembly of the Constitution opts another, please the equitable ruling-

be fair (ex aequo et bono);

33

[2.2] weighed that to prove its control, the petitioners

filed a proof-of-proof letter/inscription on the P-1 proof until the P-17 evidence,

the P-25 evidence up to the P-30 evidence as follows:

1. Proof of P-1: Photocopy of the Population Card on Andi Syamsuddin's name

Iskandar;

2. Evidence P-2: Photocopy of the Population Card on behalf of Boyamin;

3. Evidence P-3: Photocopy Act 8 of 1981 on Event Law

Criminal;

4. Evidence P-4: Photocopy of the news on Merdeka.Com, January 30, 2013

under the title "Other Motif Motif Police";

5. Proof P-5: Photocopy of vivalog news with the title " Kapolri Related In

Antasari Case;

6. Evidence P-6: Photocopied bisnis-jabar.com dated January 31, 2013 with

title " Victim's Sister: Nasruddin's murder brain is not Antasari;

7. Proof P-7: Photocopy of VIVAnew news with the title "Nasrudin's Sister Asked

Antasari Diliberated";

8. Proof P-8: Photocopy of detiknews with the title "This is the reason MA

Rejects PK Antasari Azhar";

9. Proof P-9: Photocopied okezonenews news with the title "3 Things Rejected

PK Antasari Remains Rejected";

10. Proof P-10: Photocopy of Fath 102 blog with the title "Strange, Ajaib bin

Ngawur Engineering Case Antasari Ashar";

11. Proof P-11: Photocopy of metronew news with the title "Appeal Accepted, Husni

Mubarak Lakoni Retrial";

12. Proof P-12: Photocopy of the online republika news under the title "Husni Trial

Mibarak will be Returned, Why?";

13. Evidence P-13: John Grisham's Book Of The Book, "The Innocent Men";

14. Evidence P-14: Photocopy of the Population Card in the name of Andi Nani Andriani,

S. Pd;

15. Evidence P-15: Photocopy of Robert Harris's book "IMPERIUM an

Novel";

16. Evidence P-16: Photocopy of M. Yahya Harahap's book excerpt. DISCUSSION

34

ISSUE AND APPLICATION OF THE EXAMINATION

Trial of Appeal, Cassation, and Review of Return ";

17. Evidence P-17: Photocopy of the South Jakarta State Court Quotation

No. 1529 /Pid.B/2009/PN.Jkt.sel, February 11, 2013;

18. Evidence P-25: Constitutional Court Decree No. 16 /PUU-VIII/2010, date

15 December 2010;

19. Evidence P-26: Decree of Constitutional Court Number 64 /PUU-VIII/2010, date

28 February 2011;

20. Proof 27: The Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 1980 on

A Review That Has acquired Legal Power

Which Remains, December 1, 1980;

21. Evidence P-28: Articles Miftakhulhuda " Sengkon & Karta, Next What?

22. Proof P-29: Rahmad Gunarto, "The Ever Lost Judicial Collection

Took Place" Sunday 11 July 2010;

23. Evidence P-30: News DetikNews " PK Was granted, Jonny Abba was not involved

The smuggling of 30 containers of BB, Monday 17 Janurai 2012;

In addition, the petitioners submitted witnesses and experts who delivered

oral description below. oaths/appointments in the May 15 Court of Justice

2013, May 29, 2013, June 4, 2013 and June 20, 2013, and have

also delivered a written caption outlining the following:

WITNESSES TO THE PEMOHON

1. -ir. Sri Bintang Pamungkas, MSISE, PhD

That which the witnesses will witness include three things/three things, that is

first, a review case of the indictment to the witness, in 1995,

for violating Article 134 and the Article 136 bis of the Criminal Code, because witnesses were charged

insulted the President. Second, subversion indictment, violating PNPS No. 11 of the Year

1963. Third, criminalization of witness and witnesses fired with no

respect as a civil servant and for 18 years a witness cannot rise to the rank until

now;

In 1995 a witness accused of insulting the President in the Germany, and witnesses

was sentenced to 2 years and 10 months on 8 May 1996. But before the witness.

35

entry to the prison, witnesses got another indictment of subversion. Therefore,

witnesses were arrested by the Attorney General ' s intelligence party and were held there for 2

months. When I was in custody together with the witness of the Union Party

Indonesian democracy who also delivered the declaration of the Democratic Union Party

Indonesia in 1996 when some time after the verdict fell;

Of Brother Saleh Abdullah, the General Secretary of the Party of Democracy

Indonesia, that the witness incriminating the witness is Sri Basuki who is not the name

in fact because the real name is Sri Wedar Sabudiarti. He was sent

to Bulgaria in 1963 by PTIK. Upon which the witness requested the arrival of

YLBHI, among others Bang Adnan Buyung Nasution, brother Ruhut Pangaribuan, and

Mr. Assegaf about the new findings, and they then prepared an

review. while awaiting the Jakarta High Court 's termination and

The Supreme Court' s verdict. The result was that the two rulings refused

rejecting the witness appeal for release from all charges, and in April

1997, the Supreme Court discharges the cassation. consequently on May 5,

witnesses go to jail;

At the time of witnesses in prison, Bang Buyung and friends of YLBHI

brought the concept of review back. But at that time it was also delivered

to the witness that however novum was there, in accordance with the description of the brother

Saleh Abdullah, then sent someone to leave for Germany to search

know who it really is Sri Basuki's name. However, there was a fall for the office

a Berlin occupation that would not provide a passport description held

by Sri Basuki or Sri Wedar Sabudiarti. So it was no fun for

the witness. But that's not the real reason we're not proposing

review it but instead, first, due to the sort of

argument at YLBHI, where it later broke into YLBHI and PBHI, which is

The Indonesian Society for Legal and Human Rights. At that time, Bang

Buyung told the witness that it was better not to be put forward because sir

Harto was still in power, later that it was put to the most rejected. Witness

urung submitted a review;

New on May 25, 1998 a few days after Mr. Harto stepped down

witnesses got an amnesty and abrsion from President Habibie via Kepres Number 80

36

In 1998. Amnesty was given for a broken German case

abrsions intended for subversive cases that at that time had not been severed, tatapi

dated 25 May 1998 The South Jakarta Assembly of Judges opened the hearing and

then Pending trial by reason of the witness getting abrsion with

The caption that the hearing will be opened again after any further announcement;

Continuing the German case, in 2000 witnesses submitted a review

return with novum there is a signature difference from a Sri Basuki witness or Sri

Wedar Sabudiarti due to the magistrates of judges, witnesses Sri Basuki or Sri Wedar

Sabudiarti has never been identified who she is? What's the passport?

Over the review, on May 8, 2000 the Supreme Court

made the ruling decision back and declared the defendant Dr. Ir. Sri

The Pamungkas star is not legally proven and convincingly guilty of doing

a criminal act that is not dismayed to him. Had the witness filed

a review of the first one, it was true what Bang

Buyung suggested would be rejected;

The second perkara was a subversive case, where the witness was free with

abssi, As a result, the PN South Jakarta postponed the trial and will be reopened again after

there are further announcements. Witnesses then submit a request or

a plea to the Chairman of the South Jakarta District Court and also the Prosecutor.

After the hearing was reopened on November 30, 2000, it turned out that Invite-

Invite Antisubversive PNPS The number 11 of 1963 was repealed by the Invite-

Invite of 1999 in Mr. Habibie's time. So on November 30,

2000, PN South Jakarta ruled out a free witness from the indictment.

subversive actions, whether there was or no President's decision on abstinate,

The case is no longer there. The Antisubversion Act. has been

revoked;

The third is a rather difficult case, which is the dismissal of the witness,

that the witness was fired a week after entering the Cipinang LP, in accordance with the Invite-

Invite the employee Civil Land that those who were later exposed to felon and

already have a legal force still must be fired dishonorable;

Over that the witness filed a lawsuit to PTUN and PTUN

37

decides to reject the Witness lawsuit. But when the witness appealed to

PT.TUN, the time was led by Mr Benyamin Mangkudilaga, there was already

the President ' s decision on the release of amnesty witnesses and abssions, the lawsuit

the witness was granted. As a result, witnesses thought that the dismissal was later

abolished, and witnesses began teaching back, but the salary did not go down, so

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Indonesia decided to

give a voluntary honorarium to the witness. Later in the month

December emerged the decision of Minister Juwono Sudarsono, Mendiknas or

Mendikbud who gave the activation back to the witness. However, the

in its dictum is a fallaness, where the activation began in May 1998.

Even if the dismissal was abolished as the President's decision, also

was reinforced by Benjamin Mangkudilaga in the PTUN, then it should be a witness

activated in May 1997, which was at the time of the dismissal. Regarding this

the witness wrote to Mr Juwono but was not answered;

As time went on, Mr Juwono's decision was not executed,

the witness pay was not paid. It was only in 2002, after a witness reported it

to the Inter-Parliamentary Union in Geneva, exactly October 2002, the salary

the witness came out and got a four-year rapel;

Then related to the promotion. witness, the witness filed a lawsuit

to PTUN, and it won a witness lawsuit that was subsequently reinforced by PT.TUN

and so also with the Supreme Court ' s verdict of winning the witness. However

The ruling does not mention the rise in the rank of witness and the salary of one

the year unpaid, the Supreme Court ruling only activates

returns the witness;

Ahead of the retired witness, which is 1 July 2010, Mr. Muhammad Noah

deliver a letter to the BKN (State Board of the State) requesting

technical considerations about the rise in the rank of witnesses and the BKN replied that

a rise in the rank of witness since 1992 could not be considered with the reasons, between

another, the promotion of the rank should be submitted in April or October;

Top of that witness with attorney Assegaf responded with

suing BKN for assuming that the BKN ruling over the question

38

Mendiknas was a resistance. But witnesses were defeated by the PTUN, and

PT TUN, and are now applying for a cassation to the Supreme Court;

The conclusion is that seeking justice is indeed an attempt that

is difficult in Indonesia. Therefore, according to the witness, indeed seeking justice is not

ever having to break up, so did the other parties;

2. Dr. Muchtar Pakpahan, S.H.

In 1998, when the reforms took place, witnesses were status as

prisoners and inmates at Cipinang Penitentiary in the case of a protest

labor force in 1994 in Medan. While at the time of the protest,

witnesses were in the custody of Semarang, but witnesses were blamed for

structural responsibility as the General Chairman of SBSI. Witness by the Court

The land of Medan is sentenced to three years. Witnesses filed an appeal and the appeal verdict

adds to the witness penalty to four years in prison. Witnesses filed for a cassation

to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court severance exonerated the witness with

the reason for the protests is both individual and direct responsibility. On the ruling

The Supreme Court, the Attorney General filed a review.

Review of the Attorney General Prosecuting it into news around the world

because according to KUHAP Prosecutors are prohibited from reviewing back, but

it turns out that the prosecutor submitted a review. The review ruling

sentences a witness to four years in prison;

On the verdict of a review filed by the prosecutor who convicted the witness

four years in prison, the next witness filed a review of the

A retrial verdict submitted by the Prosecutor. Witness submitted a review

returned with the argument that according to KUHAP that the party was granted

the authority to submit a review of the criminal or his family,

whereas the Prosecutor did not have the right to submit. back review,

so at that time the review occurred twice. The witness filed

a review since the witness has not yet used the rights.

A review hearing submitted by the witness was processed by the Supreme Court

whose trial was around May 2008;

39

In addition, witnesses also encountered cases with subversib indictments in

the July 27, 1996 PDIP event, which is famous for 27 centipede. At that time, the witness

was picked up by an officer from the Attorney General and a witness withheld with an indictment

carried out a subversion of a subversion that was set up with a witness book with

title "Portrait of the State of Indonesia". Book It contains a proposal for

reforms in Indonesia. The words "reform" in the book are considered to be "subversive". In the time the subversion of the subversion will be processed

by the Attorney General of the May 1998 reform event;

The third case witnessed by a witness is a retired-

retired army member of the 45-year-old. doing a seminar. The seminar

invites witnesses to be executed officially using

lighting lights, and using permission. Around a recovery of the witness minutes spoke,

the show was stopped and witnesses were arrested. Subsequently, witnesses were detained in Semarang during

21 days on the grounds of disrupting the Government of the Republic of Indonesia. The event

took place in 1998 (a reform movement). Witnesses were released from

The Cipinang Correctional Institution with a Kepres published by the President

Habibie over the reform demands. When a witness is released from prison then the charges

the subversive criminal charged with the prosecution against

the government in Semarang ceased;

The witness was acquitted of three counts not for justice, but because

reform demands;

Witnesses read the provisions set in the KUHAP that there is

the drawback of the review is only done one time, so that someone

the criminal who has submitted a review then has been closed to

filing a review again. If there is a new fact

the review can be submitted again. It is so in line with

justice as set out in Article 1 of paragraph (3), Article 28D of UUD 1945. The family

victims whose interests have been represented by prosecutors cannot submit

a review since the review is only the right of the penal

or his family, so the victim ' s family rights to submitted a review

back closed;

40

AHLI-EXPERTS OF THE APPLICANT 1. Prof. Dr. Yusril Ihza Mahendra

The petitioner submitted a plea to the Court to test

norm Article 268 paragraph (3) Act Number 8 of 1981 on Law

The Criminal Event (KUHAP) that it has " Request Review of a

ruling may only be conducted once " against the constitutional norm

as set in Section 1 paragraph (3), Section 24 of the paragraph (1), Section 28A, Section 28C

paragraph (1) and Section 28D paragraph (1) The Basic Law of 1945. The norm of the Act

as formulated in Article 268 of the paragraph (3) of the Penal Code is also found in

two other Acts, the Act of Power

Judiciary and the Law on the Supreme Court. Given the second

This last Act contains the provisions of the Return Review (PK) which

applies to all types of matters in court, according to the invocation of which

submitted by the applicant is a specific berstfaf, A special PK application

for criminal cases only. Therefore, if this request

is granted by the court, then the PK may be asked more than once,

only for criminal matters only, not for any other type of matter;

Before stepping in Further to explain the norms of norms

which are being honed for the duji, the expert wants to explain first, whether

the current request is ne bis in idem or not if it is associated with

case Previously, it was Perkara Number 16 /PUU-VIII/2010. After

compare both petitions, the expert concluded that the request

now is in addition to using some of the same article norms, but

also submitted the norms of the different chapters, namely Section 28A and Section 28C paragraph. (1)

which is not done in previous pleas, as well as to suggest

a different constitutional argument from the previous plea. Pursuant to

provisions of Article 60 paragraph (2) of the Constitutional Court Act juncto Regulation

The Constitutional Court related to testing the Act, then by remembering

the existence of different consititums and argumentation constitutional that

is different, then the current case cannot be said as a ne bis in

idem;

Norma Article 1 paragraph (3) The Basic Law of 1945 affirms

41

that "The State of Indonesia is the state of the law", it is actually a reaper

our country's philosophical basis as well as the Opening of the Invite-

Invite Basic. In the Preamble, we find the words "humanity", "fair and prosperous", "fair and civilized" and the word "social justice"

for all Indonesian people. An expert on Islamic law from the 13th century, Ibn

Hazm in the Book of Al Muhalla says that the core of the syari'ah (law) is

justice. As such, according to him, the legal norms are contrary to norms

justice as moral and philosophical norms, it is not true to be considered

as a binding legal norm. There are many definitions of fair. In

this opportunity, the expert quotes the Rasululah Muhammad Sallallahu Alaihi

Wasallam, who answers a single question about whether or not that

is fair. The Messenger of God said: "It is fair, bear to someone what

who is his right, and call it from someone what is not his right";

Being a question to the expert, if one is convicted of the verdict

that has been has a fixed legal force based on the evidence that

was put forward in the trial at the time the person was tried, but later

found new evidence that when it has not been revealed, so that the evidence-

The evidence was put forth in the trial, then the judge will cut the

concerned With the verdict free, then is the man punished?

Attributed to the hadith of God's Messenger, the person is entitled to be released,

because freedom is his right, and the release step is justice.

Indeed in the science of law known as "litest finiri opportuntet", Any case

There must be a akhlmya. But the question is, will the case end only-

the eyes because man must end the matter, when we are aware and

knowing in earnest that the end of the matter is a no-

injustice that Real?

Norma formulated by Article 268 of the paragraph (3) of the Criminal Code

allows PK only one time, in the context of a criminal case, in my saving

is contrary to the principle of justice that is so held that it is not only

as a consequence of the legal state principle. If it is found

novum which is inconclusive, then do we have to

maintain the norm that PK applies only once in

42

criminal case. Likewise, if PK only one time This is associated with the norms of Article

24 verses (1) of the Basic Law of 1945. Judicial power is

an independent power to organize a judiciary to enforce

law and justice;

The purpose of the judiciary is ultimately to enforce that justice

alone. Whether the power of the judiciary is independent it must be put on by the norm

Article 268 of the verse (3) KUHAP, so the court is unable to carry out its function

embodied justice? A person who is sentenced to life imprisonment or sentenced to

death penalty-before being executed-should be entitled to obtain

justice, with the discovery of the novum new, only because the PK may once only be a one-off?

As well as the right to improve the quality of life, as set in nornia

Article 28A The Basic Law of 1945, will be realized if someone

is imprisoned with injustice;

Norma Article 28D paragraph (1) UUD 1945 clearly contains a guarantee of the existence of

a legal certainty that is adll for everyone. Throughout history, philosophers

laws argue incessantly about the certainty of this law and justice.

I argue that justice and certainty of the law should be running

linear, there is no certainty laws without justice, and there will never be justice

with no legal certainty, In the context of our positive law, the legal certainty more

many dealing with the legal norms of the event. That PK may only one time

is a legal certainty set out in Article 283 paragraph (3) KUHAP.

While justice, relating to the legal norm of matter, whether a ruling

it is fair or not if it is associated with the evidence that is revealed to be published.

The legal Norma of the material contains the spirit of justice, however the legal norm

the show that contains legal certainty, but ignores the principle of justice;

Then the expert recalled the Constitutional Court Number 69 /PUU-X/2012,

when Brother Pariin Riduansyah asked the Court to affirm the certainty

the law conceived by Article 197 paragraph (1) of the letter k KUHAP that without

listing the order in Section 197 of paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code (1) of the Criminal Code (1) of the Criminal Code (1) of the Criminal Code (")" is a legal certainty that (etteriljk is mentioned

in Section 197 of the Penal Code), but the Court judges the legal certainty of the law in

Article 197 of the KUHAP is contrary to the substantive fairness that must be

43

is depaned in the examination of the criminal case, and hence the Court,

by ruling itself repealed the terms of the letter k in Article 197 of the paragraph (2)

KUHAP. The Court seems to want to assert that the legal certainty in

the law of the event, must run linearly with justice in the law of the material;

Associated with Perkara's legal consideration Number 69 /PUU-X/2012 it is,

then questions containing commonality may apply: Is n' t the norm Article

283 verse (3) KUHAP containing certainty of that law, should remain we allow it,

while justice that may be able to be realized by means of

return of the matter with which the legal power remains to be stunted,

only with the reason for legal certainty? I argued, the legal norm of matter

which solely gives certainty that the law should be run in

linear with the law of the material that contains the nature of justice.

Antasari Azhar ' s brother became one of the The applicant in this case is

the concrete man who was present at our tongah. The verdict of the court over him, seen from

the angle of legal certainty, is certain. He has been imprisoned 18 years by 3 times

court rulings, and 1-time PK by the Supreme Court. But millions of people outside

the court said that the Antasari Azhar was not punished with justice,

but rather with the zalfaith. Will we let Antasari Azhar languish

18 years in prison, even though he has a novum to be brought back to

the trial, but the door of justice has come to be closed in the name of legal certainty?

2. Dr. Irman Putra Sidin, S.H. MH In the phenomenon of Indonesian state in the increasingly

informative, it seems that what is happening is that the more primitive thinking

hegemon the governance of the state of life, in particular regarding the relationship

the country with the freedom of its citizens. The more the day the perception is

that the more prisons in the state of Indonesia, the more successful the country

Indonesia in the exercise of its function. Whereas, in fact, if one

the country is increasingly full of its prison population, the more the country's idea is

in the exercise of its function. Therefore, the argument that the prison

gives the effect of jera and everyone goes to jail should be put down, even

before going to jail should be humiliated is actually a form of lazness

the state is fixing its citizens. The real state took a shortcut

44

with an uptake of anger (in general) with the name of the tamer.

Iwest a mother in the market who is taking her toddler child and her child

is always fussy and "rapping", to stop the child that's so cranky and

rapping, then the mother pinched it, even if it needs to hit it rough

until it cries. Hope that wakes up, let the boy jera and fear to

repeat his deeds. The waloutcomes are not afraid, but what is happening

comes the seed of resistance and the violent nature of the child, it may even be

a grudge arises;

The perception is that when someone becomes a resident

The penitentiary in criminal status, then as if the protection of protection

The Basic Law of 1945 to the citizens of the country. Whereas the agreement that

is fundamental in a nation and country that the purpose of establishing the State

Unity of Indonesia is to allow the country to protect all nations and all of

spilling Indonesian blood. Thus, a convicted man and

the ruling already has the power of the law and the criminal is already in

behind bars, then the protection of the constitution will not be irrespective of it. That is

our commitment, that's the commitment of all citizens when we agree to form

the Republic of the Republic of Indonesia. Therefore, the law that

repeates freedom, even revoking the real rights of citizens is

ultimum remedium in the sense that the state is already unable or desperate,

even the lazy fix or Equilibrium permeates its citizens. Departing from

web server usage for the delivery of these SMS has been reached in front of

South Jakarta District Court hearing;

6. Dr. Assure Ginting, S.H., MH The State of Indonesia is a legal state based on the Basic Law

1945. The law was one of the links needed to anticipate

the rapid development of human life. Law enforcement efforts

64

seeking justice is one of the human rights being fought

to the final limit, even though the justice itself is actually still felt

samar;

Some argue that in the ruling court agency

is already a final result to be received from a matter. But in

developmental discourse and reaching a higher level of snap, the verdict

the court is no longer a ruling that should be accepted.

Paradigma changes in a certain time and place. making that justice can

change according to a specific time and place. Thus the country gives

a chance for each person to submit an attempt by its name

review as mentioned in Article 263 of the paragraph (1) KUHAP;

Rejuvenation is not a new institution for legal development in

Indonesia. The review institute has a philosophical similarity to the institution

herzeiene which is derived from the French legal system which is also held in law

event in the Netherlands. Based on the concordance principle, the application of legal provisions

the state of the occupiers to the state of the law, then the event's legal system

is applied in the Netherlands and also in Indonesia;

The Peninjuan returns as a way to improve A Judge

is a legal disadvantage. Judges are ordinary human beings who are weak, who do not

can be avoided by mistake or error. Moreover, it may also happen

things that are beyond the Judge ' s ability, new then emerges something that

a new one that can be made proof. The birth of the Supreme Mahmakah ordinance

regarding the review could not be separated by the Sengkon case and

Karta. The case was a concern because it was seen as a judicial fallacy in

The Bekasi State Court. For more than seven years, Sengkon and Karta

deprived of his independence by the state that later proved that he was not

guilty. The causes are poorly researched, eventually through the means

laws can be found a solution with the Supreme Court Regulation

No. 1 Year 1980;

The perverted justice is like the case of Sengkon and Karta repeated itself. in the year

2008 that befell David Eko Priyanto and Imam Hambali aka Kemat, who

65

subsequently called David and Imam. It starts with Ryan's confession that he

who killed Asrori, the alleged victim of the David murder case and

Imam;

Another with the case of Muchtar Pakpahan, the prosecutor submitted a review

back. When a review is only given to heirs and/or

is penalized as specified in the Act No. 8 of 1981;

As did the case of Pollycarpus Budihari Priyanto, the public prosecutor

filed Review. While this is clearly contrary to Article

263 paragraph (1) of the Penal Code that a review is the right of a convict or

his heir, but in that case, the prosecutor submitted a review;

The whole case That's because there's new evidence (novum) that appears

then that can change the view of the State Judge to change

a verdict that has been decided before that has the legal power

remains;

Expert in this trial will provide a description with the title Novum Demi

Justice;

The Pembuktian in the criminal justice system aims to seek

the truth. It is only in Indonesia that many witnesses lie while giving

captions, thus causing a right to be found guilty and

languish in prison, while the wrong is declared free. In addition to

testimonies, many are also wrong in assessing the evidence or not giving

strong evidence in the court and making a person stated

guilty of the prosecutor himself wanting to manipulate the suspect to achieve

goals;

At the trial of proof, the defendant ' s interest should be treated

justly, so no one is guilty of getting punished

or guilty of getting a sentence balanced, as well as that penalty

should be balanced by his mistakes. Witnesses cited Socrates ' statement that

saying, "It is better to release a thousand criminals than to punish

an innocent man."

66

In accordance with the written provisions in Section 264 of the paragraph (3) KUHAP, then

a request for review can only be submitted one time only. About

the timeout of the review request is not restricted. The review applicant

re-can also revoke the review request as long as it has not been broken.

It is only that if a review request is re-revoked then it cannot be

filing a review again. Such provisions are set in Article 266

Act No. 14 of 1985 on the Supreme Court;

The things describing a new state are called novum. Novum

or novi is derived from the language of the same name. latin that has the meaning of something new, new facts,

including also the new law. Novum Latin, has a complete term as

noviter verventra which in English means newly discovered fact with are

arising a law to be introduced in case, even after reading are closed. So, even if

the trial has been closed, however new facts remain still to be presented. Article 263

paragraph (2) Act No. 8 of 1981 on Criminal Event Law

mentions the term novum with a new state as a reason for

submitting a review. The definition of a new state or novum as

the base of the review submission is not explicitly stated in the KUHAP,

but only gives the limitations when there is one or the new

;

In This, the expert classifies four types novum, that is:

1. Novum which leads to the terms of the free ruling or referred to as

vrijspraak. Novum it relates to the elements of the criminal offence

proven and stated to have been fulfilled in the previous trial. This

based on the opinion of Mangasa Sidabutar that says the appointment

novum this relevant must be completely directed on not proven all

elements, some of the elements of the penal act, which are surely will

bring the legal consequences of a free ruling;

Related to the free verdict set in Section 191 paragraph (1) KUHAP

determines that a free ruling is the result obtained from

the hearing, where the defendant ' s error or deed that

dismayed to him is not proven legally . For example, if there is a

67

Criminal, felony murder convicted under Article 338

Book of Criminal Law, filed novum of visum results

which explains that the victim died first before criminal

kill it, then novum it can make the element eliminate

another person's life is not met;

2. Novum which leads to the terms of the ruling out of any lawsuit

or referred to as onslag. Novum which is a special state that

results in the defendant cannot be sentenced to criminal punishment for right

proven, but not a criminal offense, there is a forgiving, perversion,

or an emergency. As for the Act that governs the act

the criminal that is dismayed at the time of the defendant's actions, it is not

valid or already revoked. If found novum, it must be true-

it is directorable that the unrighteous deeds are true to be proven, but not

is a criminal, or proven, but cannot be criminalized because there is

a forgiving reason and forming;

3. Novum that leads to the general prosecution's verdict cannot be

received. The verdict of the public prosecution is not acceptable to be an

statement from the Judge stating that the prosecution's claim was rejected

with the basis of not sufficient reason to continue the examination.

The difference is The other free verdict is that the charges

The public prosecutor is not acceptable, a rejection by a decree

is carried out at the beginning of the trial, while another free verdict is performed

at the end of the trial;

The existence of a public prosecutor's verdict is not acceptable due to the existence of

differences of opinion between the public prosecutor with the Judge regarding the basis

the prosecution. According to the terms, this is not appropriate and overloaded because

is supposed to be set-up. For example, novum is a fact

which states that the complaint letter in the case is a delik

aduan, it turns out to be made by an unentitled. If that fact

is known as Judge prior to his fixed-strength verdict, then according to

reasonable estimate, the Judge should have stated the prosecution

the general is not acceptable;

68

4. Novum which leads to a ruling with more criminal provisions

lightly. Not every novum leads to a lighter legal application

already enough to obtain a review. There must be a legal basis

in the Act to reduce the criminal that causes maximum

the threat threatened in the Act is reduced;

Novum which leads to legal perforations also relates to form

indictments that are dismayed to the criminal. A judge may grant

a request for a criminal re-trial and break with a penalty that

is lighter if the previous trial is convicted of being charged with

an alternative indictment and convicted of a primary charge, then novum

found to prove convicted of subsider or

secondary charges;

That with a large number of novum , a justice attempt

to file novum could also be given to a certain party seeking

get justice. If, novum was found after submitting a review

back first and being snapped up by the Supreme Court, whether we would

eliminate or abolish all novum-novum which has been experts explained

that is;

Throughout novum for justice and limited to novum which provides

the impact for justice for the convict, then it is appropriate novum submitted

more than one time for justice solely. As Socrates ' opinion

that, "it is better to let go of a thousand criminals than to punish an innocent

."

[2.3] weighed that against the applicant, the Board

The People's Representative at the May 15, 2013 hearing delivered an oral description

and a written caption without the date of June 2013 received in the

The court of July 5, 2013, described as follows:

I. Legal standing (Legal Standing) Against legal standing (legal standing) the petitioners, the House

submit fully to the Speaker/Assembly of the Constitutional Court of the Constitutional Court

mulya to consider and assess whether The applicant has a position

69

laws (legal standing) or not as governed by Article 51 of the paragraph (1)

The Act on the Constitutional Court and by the Decree of the Court

The Perkara Constitution Number 006 /PUU-III/2005 and Case Number 011 /PUU-V/2007.

II. Testing of the Criminal Code, the Supreme Court Act and the Act of Justice A. On Testing of the provisions of Article 263 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Event Law on

Perkara Number 21 /PUU-XI/2013, the DPR provides an explanation as follows:

1. That in the criminal justice system the victim's occupation is represented by the state

that is the Attorney General prosecuting someone for the criminal charges

that he did in the court proceedings proceedings;

2. That in the applicable criminal law enforcement system, it is not possible

the victim's party may have (legal standing) legal standing at

the court as it is in a matter of civil or state enterprise. However

is thus for the benefit of the sense of justice of the crime victims as part

of the public at the state represented by the State of investigators

(Indonesian Police) and the public prosecutor (Republican Prosecutor

Indonesia). Therefore, in enforcement of criminal law not solely

to provide protection against a sense of justice and legal interest

victims but also in general to provide protection against

a sense of justice and legal protection to the people of an act

a felony;

3. That in connection with the applicable criminal law enforcement system

as described above, then the provisions of Article 263 paragraph (1) of the Law

The Criminal Event have been bright and clearly set that it has

the interest of the law to submit a review is penalized and

his heir, because of the criminal or his warmaster expert as the party

was directly harmed against the court ruling;

4. That against the petitioners ' view that the victim or heir could

submit a review request. According to the House of Representatives

contrary to the order of the criminal law system and the holding of the

criminal justice. investigators and the public prosecutor did not act and on behalf of

victims of the crime victims but as law enforcement officers in charge of

70

enforcing law and justice in order to provide protection

against the sense of justice and legal protection to the people of an

deed of criminal conduct;

B. That in accordance with the principles of the state of law as set out in Article 1 of the paragraph (3) of the Constitution of 1945, then the State of Indonesia is among others, the principles of supremacy of law, equality before the law, and due process of law which is guaranteed. Constitutional. The principle of state of law is the general principle that is embraced in the holding of the country of the Republic of Indonesia whereas in its implementation it must be associated with other firmness in the 1945 Constitution.

1. That in accordance with the principles of the state of the law as set out in Article 1 of the paragraph (3)

Constitution of 1945 then the State of Indonesia follows, among other principles

supremacy of law, equality before the law, due process of law which is guaranteed.

constitutionally. The principle of state of law is the general principle that is embraced in

the holding of an Indonesian state, whereas in its implementation it must

be associated with the other provisions of the 1945 Constitution;

2. That as a state of law aimed at realizing the life of life

a prosperous nation, safe, tenteram and orderly then necessary efforts to

uphold order, justice, truth and legal certainty towards the

The community of the people. One attempt to enforce order,

justice, truth and legal certainty can go through the submission of a review

back which was an extraordinary legal effort. Submission of review

re-submitted to the Supreme Court as the highest state court

based on the 2009 Act No. 48 of Power

Judiciary. Such a review request must be supported with

the specified evidence, thus the inclusion of the evidence is not only

as a condition but rather as a particular thing or circumstance that is between

another is the discovery of new evidence (novum);

3. That in the judicial system, in order to realize the granting of protection of

the guarantee of legal certainty among others as set out in Article 1 of paragraph (3),

Article 28A, Article 28D paragraph (1) of the Constitution of 1945, there is a very

fundamental is as set up in Section 2 of the paragraph (4) juncto Section 4 of the paragraph

71

(2) The Justice Power Act is that, "The justice is done with

simple, fast, and light cost". Further in the description of Article 2 of the paragraph

(4) the Act a quo is said to be "simple" is the examination

and the resolution of the case is conducted in an efficient and effective manner. The

which is referred to as "light expense" is the cost of the case that can be reached

by the public. However, simple, quick, and light expenses

in case checks and resolve in court do not

rule out rigor and ingenuity in search of truth and

justice;

4. That by relying on the principle of such judicial execution,

determination that the submission of re-review is limited to just 1 (one) times

is a proof that the Act-forming intentions for

provide The motives for the Supreme Court judge who cut the matter of review

return to act with caution and indiscretions in

decision making because the verdict will determine the fate of a person.

As well provisions of Section 6A Act Number 3 Year 2009

about the Second Amendment to the Act No. 14 of 1985 on

The Supreme Court determined that, the Supreme Court had integrity and

the personality is unreprehenable, fair, professional, and experienced in the law.

With a requirement for a Judge Such a strict grand is expected

in each decision making has been done meticulously, meticulously, and

professionals so that an error is not supposed to happen;

5. That section 263 paragraph provision (2) of KUHAP states:

" Request for review is conducted on the basis:

a. In the event of a new state that has a strong assumption, that if

circumstances are already known at the time of the trial, the result

will be a free verdict or a ruling out of any lawsuit.

or the public prosecution's demands are not acceptable or against that matter

applies the criminal provisions lighter;

b. If in the event of a ruling there is a statement that something has been

proven, but the thing or circumstance as the basis and reason of the verdict

which has proved it, it turns out to have contradictory one with the other;

72

c. if the ruling clearly shows a judge or

a real error.

The provisions of the base setting to submit such a review,

have Provide guidelines for the seeker of justice to get his rights.

As stated in Section 266 of the paragraph (2) the letter b of the KUHAP

mentions " In case the Supreme Court argues that the request

re-review may be accepted for review, the terms of the

The following:

b. if the Supreme Court justifies the applicant, the Supreme Court

cancels the ruling in which the review is in favor and

dropped a ruling that could be:

1. free verdict;

2. a ruling out of any lawsuit;

3. The verdict cannot accept the public prosecutor's demands;

4. the verdict by applying a lighter criminal provision ".

6. That Article 28D paragraph (1) of the Constitution of 1945 states that "Everyone is entitled

upon the recognition, assurance, protection, and certainty of fair law and

equal treatment before the law". The emphasis on legal certainty

which is fair to any person before this law is the basis

philosophical Act in setting the submission of review returns;

7. That the Third Acts of the judiciary a quo has been consistent

governs the filing of a review of Article 24 of the paragraph (2) of the Act

The Power of Justice, Article 66 of the paragraph (1) of the Supreme Court, and Article 268

paragraph (3) KUHAP. Thus the quest for justice to obtain

a fair legal certainty has been set up in the a quo and not

there is a conflict between the three a quo Act;

8. That with unrestricted review submission, it could be

infliting losses for justice seekers in the search for justice,

because if it opens the opportunity for a review submission more than

one time other than this violation of the Act also resulted in

the resolution of the case into an endless length of non-ending, which

can instead lead to legal uncertainty for the seeker of justice;

73

9. That the restrictions on the rights of the seeker of justice in submission of the application

a review as set out in the provisions of the Act

a quo which is being honed of testing, constitutionally justified

under the provisions of Article 28J paragraph (2) of the Constitution of 1945, this restriction is

in order to provide equal position in law and commonality

in obtaining justice for all citizens to guarantee certainty

the law the fair and legal protection based on the rules

The Invitation-Invitation In effect, it is in accordance with Article 1

paragraph (3), Section 24 of the paragraph (1), and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution;

10. That is related to the limitations of filing a review application

as described by the House above, in line with the opinion

the law of the Constitutional Court in the Decree Number 16 /PUU-VIII/2010 at

page 66- The other 68 states:

" That according to the Court, the state of the law is a country that is,

among others, the principles of the supremacy of law, equality before the law, and due

process of law It's constitutionally guaranteed. The principle of state of law is

The general principle of being held in the state of the Republic of Indonesia

whereas in its implementation it must be associated with the firmness

anotherin the 1945 Constitution "

" Restriction of the return invocation is returned as required

The applicant is in the framework due process of law which is

reasonable in the formulation of the Act provided that the restriction be treated

equally to all people to enforce the law material, such as

with restrictions on a person's freedom due to a restraining act by

authorized law enforcement that applies to all persons who

commit the act of crime "

"" " According to the Court if the provisions of the review request returned as

The extraordinary legal efforts are not limited then there will be obscurity and

the uncertainty of the law until how many times the review can be returned. done.

The circumstances would result in a legal uncertainty that equitable when

a case will end which is contrary to the provisions of the Constitution

1945 that must provide recognition, assurance, protection, and certainty

74

fair law against any person "

" " It is right that everyone ' s right to seek and gets justice guaranteed

by the constitution. Such rights are not absolute but can be restricted

according to the provisions of Article 28J paragraph (2) of the Constitution of 1945 determining that in

exercising its rights and freedom, each person is subject to

the restrictions specified with Act with intent alone-

the eyes to guarantee recognition as well as respect for rights and freedoms

others and to meet the fair demands accordingly. considerations

morals, religious values, security, and public order in society

democratic "

11. That is based on those descriptions, then the provisions of Article 24 of the paragraph

(2) of the Law of Justice, Section 66 of the paragraph (1) of the Supreme Court, and

Article 268 of the paragraph (3) of the Penal Code is not at all contrary to the provisions

Section 1 verse (3), Section 24 of the paragraph (1), Article 28A paragraph (1), Article 28C paragraph (1), and

28D paragraph (1) of the Constitution of 1945

Thus the House pleads with the Speaker/Assembly of the Constitutional Court which

His majesty gives an amar the verdict as follows:

1. Reject the applicant's request or at least specify the request

The applicant is not acceptable.

2. The DPR's description was accepted for the whole;

3. Stating the provisions of Article 24 of the paragraph (2) of the Justice Power Act,

Article 66 of the paragraph (1) of the Supreme Court Act, and Article 268 of the paragraph (1) and

paragraph (3) of the Penal Code is not at all contrary to the provisions of Article 1 of the paragraph

(3), Article 24 of the paragraph (1), Article 28A paragraph (1), Article 28C paragraph (1), and 28D paragraph (1)

Constitution of 1945

4. Stating the provisions of Article 24 of the paragraph (2) of the Justice Power Act,

Article 66 of the paragraph (1) of the Supreme Court Act, and Article 268 of the paragraph (1) and

paragraph (3) of the Penal Code still has a binding legal force.

[2.4] Weighed that on the request of the applicant, the Government

at the hearing of 15 May 2013 delivered the oral and the caption

written without the date of May 2013 which was accepted in the Court of Justice

75

dated June 12, 2013, which at its point describes as follows:

I. About The Subject Of The Applicant

1. That according to the petitioners, the provisions of Article 263 paragraph (1) KUHAP [sic!] that restricting the Reelection Request over a ruling can only be

done one time has ignored the principle and value of justice

materiel/substantial, legal state principle that guarantees the rights of citizens

states to fight for justice and to contrast with the law

responsive and progressive, so that the seeker of justice should not be no restriction;

2. That according to the petitioners, as a result of Article 268 of the paragraph (3) KUHAP, if at a time

there is a certain technology or software-software that can detect the flow

the text received aim. Nasrudin Zulkarnaen, who, according to the applicant I (and

based on the expert on the trial at Jakarta District Court

South) is not proven to be sent using the applicant number I, then

The applicant is still loss of opportunity or opportunity to perform

legal efforts to be exempt from punishment;

3. That re-evaluation in criminal cases could be

submitted more than once with a provision based on new evidence reasons

based on the use of science and technology that can be

accounted for. The applicant pleads for Article 268 of the paragraph (3)

KUHAP is declared conditional constitutional that it reads " Request

The Return Review of a ruling can only be performed one time only,

except against reasons for the discovery of new evidence based on the utilization of science

knowledge and technology can be submitted more than once ";

II. About Legal Standing (Legal Standing) The applicant

In accordance with the provisions of Article 51 of the paragraph (1) Act Number 24 of the Year

2003 on the Constitutional Court as amended with the Invite-

Invite Number 8 2011 stated that the applicant is a party that

considers the rights and/or its constitutional authority be harmed by the effective

Act, that is:

a. Individual citizens of Indonesia;

76

b. the unity of the indigenous law society as long as it is alive and in accordance with

the development of the society and the principle of the Republic of the Republic of Indonesia

which is set in Undang-Undang;

c. the public or private legal entity; or

d. country's institutions;

The above provisions are expressed in its explanation, that what

with "constitutional rights" is the rights set in the Act

The Basic State of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945, then in advance. must

explain and prove:

a. Qualify for the a quo as referred to in Article 51

paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court of 2003 on Constitutional Court

as amended by Act No. 8 of 2011;

b. The rights and/or its constitutional authority in the qualifying referred to which

is considered to have been harmed by the enactment of the tested Act;

c. Rights and/or constitutional authority of the applicant as a result of

the enactment of the required Act.

Further the Constitutional Court has provided the understanding and limitation

cumulative over rights losses. and/or constitutional authority arising

due to the enactment of an Act according to Article 51 paragraph (1) Act

Number 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court (vide Putermination Number 006 /PUU-

III/2005 and The next ruling) must meet 5 (five) terms:

a. the constitutional right of the applicant given by the Basic Law

Republic of Indonesia of Indonesia Year 1945;

b. that the applicant ' s constitutional right is considered by the applicant to have

harmed by an Act tested;

c. that the constitutional loss of the intended applicant is specific (specifically)

and actual or at least potentially a potential that according to reasonable reasoning

can be determined to occur;

d. Due (causal verband) relationship between loss and expiring

The Act is moveed to be tested;

e. It is possible that by the request of a request then a loss

the constitutional constitutional will not or no longer occur;

77

Top of those things above, may need to be questioned by the interests of the

applicant whether it is appropriate as a party to assume the right and/or

its constitutional authority is harmed by the enactment of the provisions Article 268 of the paragraph

(3) KUHAP;

Against legal standing (legal standing) the applicant, Government

submit fully to the Speaker/Assembly of the Constitutional Court of Justice for

consider and judge whether the applicant has a position

legal (legal standing) or not, as defined by Article 51 of the paragraph

(1) Act No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court

as amended by the Act No. 8 of 2011 and

based on previous Constitutional Court rulings (vide Putermination Number

006/PUU-l11/2005 and Putermination Number 11 /PUU ' V/2007);

III. Government Explanations For The Application Of The Act

That before the Government outlines more about the material that

is being honed by the petitioners, the Government can convey that against

provisions of Article 268 paragraph (3) of the Code of Criminal Code (3) of the Penal Code have been submitted to

The Constitutional Court with the case register Number 16 /PUU-VIII/2010 dated 15

December 2010, which Amar Verdict stated " plea The applicant is not

can be received " the verdict is quoted as saying in consideration of the Court

in re-testing the provisions of Article 268 paragraph (3) Act 8/1981 in registers

case 64 /PUU-VIII/2010 dated 23 February 2011 that also stated

" Request for the applicant is not may be accepted ";

That against the subject matter, section, and/or part of the Invite-

Invite that has been tested, cannot be retested, except with

another or different reason (vide Article 60 of the MK Act, Section 2). 42 Rules of Justice

Constitution Number 06 /PMK/2005 on the Event Guidelines In the Case of Testing

The Act);

That although the applicant in his request postulate that

testing a quo was different from the previous rulings. The government does not

see any other or different reasons between the Plea in the Number case