2

in the Book Registration of the Constitution on March 20, 2013 with

Number 36 /PUU-XI/2013, which was corrected and received at Kepaniteraan

Court on 23 April 2013 and 24 April 2013, which

outlines the following:

That the applicant's request in conjunction with the test of the Invite-

invite against the Basic Law of 1945, in conjunction with

the Supreme Court ruling in the review level back with respect to

the Court of State Court ruling 132 /Pid/B/1995/PN.Dps. until the verdict

The Supreme Court is in the review level again. The applicant is aware

the lack of the applicant in suggesting in discussing the test

Act against the Basic Law of 1945 which in terms of

its relationship with the application of the law in severing the matter

A review in the case of the penal name I Made Sudana

so that according to the Assembly of the Constitutional Court judging what the applicant

submit is a concrete case, when the applicant is referring to

the issue Unimplemented invitations in the handling

case criminal I Made Sudana from the ruling level of the State Court until

the Supreme Court ' s ruling in the review rate returns. Because the

is discussed regarding the criminal case, the applicant in suggesting what

is the purpose of the applicant much concerning the description of the criminal case in

the penal case I Made Sudana is in its handling until level

review.

That the applicant as an individual citizen of Indonesia in submitting

testing the Act against the Basic Law of 1945 as

described above, where the rights and authority The applicant ' s constitution with

itself is also penalized I Made Sudana which is also as a citizen

The State is primarily in conjunction with Article 268 of the paragraph (3) of the Act

No. 8 of 1981 (KUHAP) which governs the request for review

on a ruling can only be done only once Include the Invite-

Other Invite that set about the review can only be performed

only once, the applicant is feeling very aggrieved.

That the applicant was once a special power from the penal I Made Sudana

in the last review level of the Supreme Court ruling of the date

3

August 15, 1996 Number 728 K/Pid/1996 photocopy requests for review

dated December 24, 1999 are attached in the application of the Invite-

Invite against the Basic Law 1945 on 1 March 2013 sign D.

In the request of such a review is attached to the Giving Act

The Special Power of the photocopier is signed IM A. But is not currently available. But as

individuals of Indonesian nationals for feeling the truth and justice

in case of the penal name I Made Sudana are trampled so much

the irregularations feel the need to apply for testing The Act

against the Basic Law of 1945 in criminal criminal case I Made

The fund which also considers the rights and or authority of the constitution

The applicant has been harmed by the enactment of Article 24 of the paragraph (2) Law

Number 48 of 2009 on the Power of Justice, Article 66 of the paragraph (1) Invite-

Invite Number 14 Year 1985 yo Act Number 3 of 2009 on

Supreme Court and Article 268 paragraph (3), Act No. 8 of 1981

about the KUHAP applied in matters on behalf of I Made

Sudana. For this it has also been the applicant in the plea

testing the Act against the Basic Law of 1945 on the 20th

April 2013 which has been sent to the Constitutional Court, for fear after 14

days after April 11, 2013 preliminary hearing of the application test

Act against the Basic Law of 1945 in which in the ruling

Supreme Court in review level is back in proofs

applied barring Article 184 of the paragraph (1) of the evidence tool

is also in the request review in the assessment of the evidence tool

in Section 263 of the paragraph (2a) of the KUHAP submitted in the trial

besides the new circumstances obtained in the Supreme Court trial

in the review level have not exactly the exact judgment and discussion

so barring in the formulation of consideration and amar the verdict

the idation in accordance with the provisions of Article 197 paragraph (1) one of the letters a

s/d letter e KUHAP is linked to the provisions of Section 197 paragraph (2) KUHAP

so that in relation to the review return on behalf of the penal I

Made Sudana also contrary to section 1 paragraph (3) section 28 D paragraph (1)

The Basic Law of 1945 outlines Indonesia as the State of the Law.

Everyone is entitled to a recognition of bail protection and legal certainty

the fair as well as the same treatment before the law.

4

That the Supreme Court is in review level again with its verdict

No. 21 PK/Pid/2001 dated January 30, 2002 in severing the case

criminal name I Made Sudana in: "Trial"

s Reject A review request returned from the applicant review

convict I Made Sudana.

The law established that the Supreme Court ruling on August 5, 1995 Number

728K/Pid/1996 which is being honed of the review. stay in effect.

Replacing the review applicant to pay the case fee

Rp. 2,500,-(two thousand five hundred rupiah). That in consideration

the Supreme Court in conjunction with authentic deed Number 20 and

The number 21 was seized into the evidence tool in the News Event

Examination as described in page 10 of the figure 1 of Verdict

Supreme Court Number 21 PK/Pid/2001 dated January 30, 2002, Supreme Court

The Supreme in review level could not be justified by

because the evidence of the deed submitted was not a new matter.

as set out in section 263 paragraph (2) a Act Number 8

Year 1981 (KUHAP). That the petitioner in submitting the evidence

authentic deed Number 20 and No. 21 of 1987, is the contents of the device

proof of the authentic deedhe Supreme Court should be

in the Cassation and the Supreme Court in the review level

consider and speak about the authentic deed evidence tool Number 20 and

The number 21 is how its status is as described above but

it is not done in the Supreme Court and is linked to the Article

197 paragraph (1) j KUHAP that is the letter of the judgment according to the caption that

the letter turns out to be false or where it is The fist is if there is an authentic deed

false as outlined in the verdict State Court Number

132 /Pid/B/1995/PN.Dps. but in amar the ruling Court's ruling

it is not explained where the falsity of the authentic deed is Number 20 and Number 21

so that in accordance with the provisions of the article 197 paragraph (2) j KUHAP does not

comply with the provisions of Article 197 paragraph (1) j KUHAP resulting in a null verdict

by law.

That in relation to the State Court ruling Number 132 /Pid/B/1995/

PN.Dps. in deciphering elements of Article 378 of the Criminal Code and elements of the Article

266 paragraph (I) KUHAP of the element of the goods of which It's unelaborated. Thus

as well as the Supreme Court in the Cassation level in its verdict Number 728

K/Pid/1996 in its role took a pass consideration

The Court of the Interior above did not add an element's description of the item

who above Section 378 of the Criminal Code and Section 266 of the paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code so that

is not to be presented with the elements of the goods of which in its verdict

in accordance with the provisions of Article 197 paragraph (1) h of the KUHAP outlining

The statement of the defendant, the statement of truth has been fulfilled, the element-

element in The sanctity of the felon was invaded with his qualifications and

8

idlers or actions were dropped. In this case the elements of the goods

who from Section 378 of the Criminal Code and Section 266 of the paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code are not described in

the consideration of its verdict so as not to comply with the provisions of Article 197 paragraph (I)

h KUHAP resulted in the verdict null for the sake of law in accordance with the provisions

Article 197 paragraph (2) h KUHAP.

That the Supreme Court assembly in the level of Cassation above in

ruling Number 728 K/Pid/1996 dated 5 August 1996 in proving

indicative of Article 378 of the Criminal Code in its consideration as described

in page 13 of the verdict starts from the sentence: And it turns out that the witness

the victim handed the letter to the defendant is not due to the persuasion

so that the defendant should be acquitted of the indictment of Article 378 of the Criminal Code.

The Sepateness of the Supreme Court in the Level of Cassation upon acquitment

the defendant of the indictment of Article 378 of the Criminal Code should prove

indictment of decency or (subsidiary) Article 372 of the Penal Code, but in this case Article 372

never proven but the Supreme Court in the Cassation level

directly proves the second indictment of Article 266 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code and never

proves Section 372 of the Criminal Code as described above is linked

with Article 197 verse (1) f KUHAP outlining the consideration that

is compiled concise as Facts and circumstances along with the proof tool

obtained from the hearing at the hearing that was the basis of the error determination

the defendant.

In this Section 372 of the Penal Code is not broken up in the trial so that the basis

the idation and the legal basis of the ruling in conjunction with Article 372

The Penal Code is not described in its verdict, nor is the circumstances

compacing and easing is not described in the Supreme Court ruling

in the case of Cassation so as not to comply with the provisions of Article 197 paragraph (1) f

KUHAP in accordance with the provisions of Article 197 paragraph (2) f KUHAP result

The verdict is null and void. Included are not honoured in the ruling

Supreme Court in the Cassation level and Supreme Court Decision in

the repetition rate does not contain incriminating things and

lighten up.

That in conjunction with the Supreme Court ruling in the degree

The Cassation was above by the Supreme Court in the review in

ruling Number 21 PK/Pid/2001 dated January 30, 2002 in: "On Trial":

9

Rejected a review request from the review applicant

penalized I Made Sudana.

Declared that the Supreme Court ruling of August 5, 1996 Number

728 K/Pid/1996 that was moted such review remains in effect and

beyond

Jelapending Supreme Court rulings in the rate of review defects

the laws of the first indictment or (subsidiary) of Section 372 of the Penal Code are not

ever substantiate in the trial in the Supreme Court ruling in

the level of cassation after releasing the defendant I Made Sudana from the indictment

the section 378 of the Criminal Code as described above, so that the verdict

Supreme Court in the review level is not considering

in the disconnect is not unopened Section 372 of the Criminal Code is in accordance with

provisions of Article 197 paragraph (1) f KUHAP as described above

associated with Article 197 paragraph (2) f KUHAP verdict be null and void.

law.

That with the limit of the Supreme Court ruling in the review level

back in this case resulted in Article 268 of the paragraph (3) of the KUHAP (Invite-

invite Number 8 of 1981) should not be applied in the matter

on behalf of the penal I Made Sudana was in case case Number 21

PK/Pid/2001 dated January 30, 1996, by itself null and void. But

with the Supreme Court ruling in the review level of which

corroborates the Supreme Court ' s ruling in the Cassation level. So that there is no

again the legal effort can be taken, except with the effort of filing

the application of the Act of Testing against the Basic Law of 1945.

Thus in the Supreme Court 's ruling in the review level

that in its verdict did not address and consider the Attorney' s indictment

The General Prosecuting, the Court of State ruling, the High Court ruling and

The case of the Kasasi level as outlined in the application of the test

Act against the Basic Law of 1945 dated 1 March 2013.

Also described in the remediation of the test to test the Act against

The Basic Law of 1945 dated 20 April 2013 and as described

above has also led to a legal defect according to the applicant, because in

discussing the review request could not be irrespective of the indictment

The Public Prosecutor and the verdict on top of that as well

10

is considered by the Supreme Court in the review level back in

taking the verdict.

That based on the description of the plea above hereby begs

May the Assembly of the Court of Justice The constitution deigned, courting and

severing the request of the applicant with a ruling as follows:

1. Accept and grant the applicant's request.

2. Represent Article 24 of the paragraph (2) of the Law Number 48 of 2009 on

The Power of Justice and Article 66 of the paragraph (1) Act Number 14

Year 1985 yo Act Number 3 of 2009 on the Court

the Great as well as Article 268 of the paragraph (3) Act No. 8 of 1981 on

20

66 verses (1) of the Supreme Court of the Supreme Court (1),

Article 24 of the paragraph (1), Section 28A paragraph (1), Section 28C of paragraph (1), and Section 28D

paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

C. DPR RI I. Legal standing (Legal Standing)

Against legal standing (legal standing) the applicant, DPR

submit fully to the Speaker/Assembly of the Court of Justice

The mulya Constitution for consider and assess whether

The applicant has a legal standing (legal standing) or not

as provided by Article 51 of the paragraph (1) of the Act on

The Constitutional Court and by the Court of Justice Constitution

Perkara Number 006 /PUU-III/2005 and Perkara Number 011 /PUU-V/2007.

II. Testing of the KUHAP, the Supreme Court Act and the Justice Power Act A. That the underlying issue or subject matter in the case of Number

36 /PUU-XI/2013 is the restriction of application application

a review of only one time only

as set out in the provisions of Article 24 of the paragraph (2) Power Act

Judiciary, Article 66 paragraph (1) of the Supreme Court Act and juncto Article

268 verses (3) KUHAP. According to the Applicant it must

be amended by allowing the submission of a review

return more than once for the sake of justice and materiel correctness or

substantive. Against this the DPR gave the description

The following:

1. That according to the principles of the state of the law as set in

Article 1 of the paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution, then the State of Indonesia is

among others, the principles Supremacy of law, equality before the law,

and due process of law that is constitutionally guaranteed. The principle

the state of law is the general principle that is embraced in

the holding of the state of the Republic of Indonesia while in reme Court and Article 268 of the paragraph (3)

The Criminal Event Law Act has consistently set the provision

regarding the review. Thus the provisions that

contained in some of those Acts above, in particular that

set about a review (PK) have provided a guarantee,

fair protection and legal certainty. as guaranteed in

Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. If there is a restriction-

the restrictions set forth by the Act are solely

in the course of respect for the exercise of human rights

others (vide Article 28J verse (1) and verse (2) of the 1945 Constitution).

and the presence of

" novum ". The conflict van rechtspraak was

in which it was in a different ruling with circumstances

that was found to be proven, but it turns out that one with the othergh the Court of Justice

on April 23, 2013 and 24 April 2013, but the restoration of the plea

The applicant remains unclear and blurred;

[3.7] Draw that based on such consideration, according to

The court, the applicant ' s plea is not clear of intent and purpose, whether

will test the constitutionality of the norm or test a concrete case;

28

[3.8] A draw that according to the applicant's Court of invocation is not

clearly, so that the legal position as well as the subject matter is not considered;

4. KONKLUSI

Based on the assessment of the facts and laws as described in

above, the Court concluded:

[4.1] The court is authorized to prosecute the a quo;

[4.2] The applicant ' s Applicant blur;

[4.3] Legal occupation and Pokok plea not considered;

Based on the Basic Law of the Republic of Indonesia Year

1945, Act No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court

as amended by Act No. 8 of 2011 on

Changes To The Law No. 24 Year 2003 on the Court

Constitution (State Sheet of Indonesia Year 2011 Number 70,

Additional Gazette Republic of Indonesia Number 5226), and

Act Number 48 Year 2009 About Power Of Justice

(sheet Of State Of The Republic Of Indonesia In 2009 Number 157, Additional

sheet Of State Of Indonesia Republic Number 5076);

5. AMAR RULING,

PROSECUTING,

DECLARING THE APPLICANT IS UNACCEPTABLE.

So it was decided in a Consultative Meeting by

nine Constitutional Judges, M. Akil Mochtar, as Chairman. Arrested

Member, Achmad Sodiki, Maria Farida Indrati, Harjono, Hamdan Zoelva, Arief

Hidayat, Muhammad Alim, Anwar Usman, and Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi, respectively-

each as Member, at Monday, twenty-two, month July, year two thousand thirteen, and spoken in the plenary session of the Constitutional Court open to the public on on Thursday, date six, in March, year two thousand fourteen, finished pronounced at 15.05 WIB, by eight

29

Constitutional justices, namely Hamdan Zoelva, as Chairman of the Members, Arief

Hidayat, Maria Farida Indrati, Harjono, Muhammad Alim, Anwar Usman, Ahmad

Fadlil Sumadi, and Patrialis Akbar, respectively as Members, with

accompanied by Cholidin Nasir as Panitera Replacement, attended by

The government or representing and the People's Representative Council or who

represents, without the attendance of the applicant.

CHAIRMAN,

.

Hamdan Zoelva

MEMBERS,

ttd.

Arief Hidayat

ttd.

Maria farida Indrati

ttd.

Harjono

ttd.

Muhammad Alim

ttd.

Anwar Usman

ttd.

Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi

ttd.

Patrialis Akbar

PANITERA REPLACEMENT,

ttd.

Cholidin Nasir