Key Benefits:
VERDICT Number 36 /PUU-XI/2013
FOR JUSTICE BASED ON THE DIVINITY OF THE ALMIGHTY
CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA
[1.1] That prosecuted constitutional matters at first level and last,
dropping a ruling in case of Test Number 8 Year
1981 on Criminal Event Law, Act No. 48 of 2009
on the Power of Justice, Act Number 3 of the Year 2009 about
Second Changes To The Number 14 Year 1985 Act on
Supreme Court
[1.2] Name: I Made Sudana, S.H.
Age: 74 Years
Employment: Retired PNS
Address: Gandapura Gg Road. IB/Number 1 Denpasar Eastern-Bali
Next is called ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- and read a written caption from the Government;
Hear and read the written caption from the House of Representatives
People;
Checking the applicant ' s evidence;
2. SITTING MATTER
[2.1] A draw that the applicant has submitted this undated application
1 March 2013 which is accepted in the Constitution of the Constitutional Court (next
called the Court of Justice) on 13 March. 2013, based on
Deed Receipt of Request File Number 117 /PAN.MK/ 2013 and noted
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 deed he 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