5

inner birth and family are already unrecoverable, how much

the losses and this do not occur for the sake of justice;

5. That if a concerned request was later granted then

the constitutional loss in question could indeed be restored

back or at least would not happen again with the cancellation

The Act referred to, because the Constitutional Court escorts

The Constitution as described above, will not occur in

upholding human rights;

-That based on the above legal event, the applicant is party

that assume the rights and/or its constitutional authority

be harmed by the expiring Act No. 8 of 1981. Article

268 verses (1), according to the applicant, are strongly contradictory or

in violation of Article 28D (1), Article 28I (1), paragraph (2), and paragraph (5)

Constitution of 1945, as there is still the right of the applicant to submit an effort

review to the Supreme Court under Article 263

paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of the Act a quo;

C. THE REASONS FOR THE APPLICANT In this plea, the applicant does not convey the dalil-dalil

the complicated laws or legal theories are difficult and sophisticated, as it is cost-effective

The applicant at all who is the reason for the applicant is very clear. and

strong as well as reason, that Article 268 of the paragraph (1) Act Number 8

of 1981 on the Law of Criminal Events is in fact contradictory

with Article 28D of paragraph (1), Article 28I of paragraph (1), paragraph (2), and paragraph (5) of the Constitution

1945, which mentions each person entitled to the recognition, warranty,

protection, and a fair legal certainty as well as equal treatment in

to the law, the right to life, the right to not be tortured, the right of independence

thoughts and conscience, religious rights, rights recognized as personal in the presence

the law, and the right to not prosecuted on the basis of the receding law

is a human right that cannot be reduced under any circumstances;

Everyone is entitled to be free from the discriminatory treatment of

any basis and entitled getting protection against the treatment

that is discriminatory to it; To enforcing and protecting human rights

human rights in accordance with the principles of a democratic law state, then

6

The implementation of human rights is guaranteed, set, and poured in

the laws of the negotiations;

as for the reasons the appeal is as follows:

1. That Article 268 of the paragraph (1) of the Criminal Event Law Act

mentions a review request for a ruling not

suspending nor terminating the implementation of the ruling

that is;

That the definition of the phrase " does not suspend or stop" is a must to be implemented, not to be not, and

for sure, whereas the notion of request is pledging, it can be interpreted

granted or rejected, but this opportunity provided that if

is connected contains the meaning that one word must be executed and

one other word can be moveed where its provisions are

contradictory. Therefore, there is no certainty of a human rights law

a human being unable to be reduced under any circumstances;

2. That there is a phrase "The uncertainty of the Law Fair" in Article 28D of the paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. Asas "Fair Legal uncertainty" means closed, no more legal attempts, so the law is certain, not

there is more demand and pleas, whereas there is still a legal effort

outstanding is the review and a fair legal certainty,

meaning must wait for a review decision once

The submission of such a review is no deadline and

may be submitted by the concerned or its heir. However

as long as there is still being concerned and ready to submit

review, it is the right to be concerned, and

no constitutional rights harmed, cause and effect of Article 268

paragraph (1) this embed a fair legal uncertainty, in accordance with

Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution;

3. a. That Article 268 of the paragraph (1) of the a quo Act contradictory

with Article 28I paragraph (1) of the Constitution of 1945. The definition of a rights sentence child

human rights that cannot be reduced under any circumstances

is a human right that should be held high by anyone

including by the Act, but by Article 268 of the verse (1)

Act a quo facing or reducing basic rights

7

humans because a person must be executed first then

there is an extraordinary legal effort that is a review and it is already

reducing human rights;

b. Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, each person is entitled free of

the discriminatory treatment of any basis and is entitled

obtaining protection against the discriminatory treatment

and Article 268 of the paragraph (1) The a quo Act has

incline discriminatory on its implementation in the field, not

a slight death penalty of ± 52 people and a sentence of a lifetime

life was not executed in the Lapas Nusakambangan visit time of Yth,

The father of the Minister of Law and Human Rights has languish ± 40 years in the LP

Nusakambangan with files only Extra Vonis, and there are Yth,

Mr Husen Hardjadinata, S.H., (former Chairman of KPUD Subang)

executed serve the sentence and submitted a review

granted, the person was already out of the Subang LP and in

The death of the Dead Criminal is still not executed but given the effort

The extraordinary law is the review. And this is not the wrong

application and omission, it only applies to the apparatus but for

in question is the discriminatory treatment

and this is contrary to Article 28I of the paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution;

c. Article 28I paragraph (5) of the Constitution of 1945, Child of Human Rights guaranteed

means that Human Rights is held in high esteem will not be stung

or be treated low as long as there is a legal effort such as

review of it must be run first until waiting

the review decision returns it because if the person is in

the prison with an execution under Article 268 of the paragraph (1) means not at

Guarantee the human rights of that, and if the review Back it

granted no means anymore, because the person is low

His dignity, even though her rights and dignity were restored

iweswor. That the intended loss or authority is specific, real

and real (actual) or at least is potential according to

reasonable reasoning (beyond reasonable doubt). As there is still the right

The applicant submits an extraordinary legal effort which is a review

for the sake of justice and obstructed with Article 268 of the paragraph (1) Act

a quo there must be an execution and this section there is potential loss of rights

constitutional The applicant, because if a review is granted,

The applicant has been running the sentence and it harms the rights of

The applicant;

4. That absence or loss of loss is indeed proven

has a causal link or causal relationship (causal

verband) by the enactment of the Act, because if

review of the return Granted, and has served a sentence, which in

rehabilitatio

a quo;

[4.2] The applicant is not have legal standing (legal standing) to

apply a quo;

[4.3] Pokok requests are not considered.

Based on the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia Year

1945 and by remembering the Law No. 24 of 2003 concerning

The Constitutional Court

98, Additional Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 4316);

15

5. AMAR RULING

Prosecuting,

Declaring the applicant is not acceptable. Thus it was decided at the Meeting of the Judges on Tuesday eight months in March of the two thousand eleven by the eight Judges of the Constitution, namely the Moh. Mahfud MD as Chairman of the Members, Achmad Sodiki, M. Akil Mochtar, Muhammad Alim, Hamdan Zoelva, Maria Farida Indrati, Harjono, and Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi respectively as Members and was spoken in the Plenary Session of the Open to the public on the day The Friday of the eleventh month of March of the year two thousand eleven by the eight Justices of the Constitution, the Moh. Mahfud MD as Chairman of the Members, Achmad Sodiki, M. Akil Mochtar, Muhammad Alim, Hamdan Zoelva, Maria Farida Indrati, Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi and Harjono respectively as Members were accompanied by Ina Zuchriyah Tjando as Panitera Replacement, and it is attended by the applicant, the Government or the People ' s Consultative Council or the one representing.

CHAIRMAN,

ttd.

Moh. -Mahfud MD. MEMBERS,

yyyy.

Achmad Sodiki

ttd.

M. Akil Mochtar

ttd.

Maria Farida Indrati

ttd.

Muhammad Alim

ttd. Harjono

ttd. Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi

16

ttd.

Hamdan Zoelva

PANITERA REPLACEMENT ttd.

Ina Zuchriyah Tjando