6

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

The Criminal Event reads:

" Requests of the Rejuvenation of a ruling can only

is done one time ";

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

Law of Penal Events (State Sheet Indonesia Number 76

1981, Additional Gazette Republic of Indonesia Number

3209):" Against the Court ruling that has gained the power

the law remains, unless the ruling is free or off of any demands

the law, penal or its heir may submit a request

review back to the Supreme Court ";

11. That by virtue of the prevailing norm in Section 24 of the paragraph (2)

Act Number 48 of the Year 2009 on the Power of Justice

and Article 66 of the paragraph (1) Act No. 14 of 1985 juncto

Act Number 5 Year 2004 juncto Act Number 3

Year 2009 on Second Amendment to the Law Number 14

Year 1985 on the Supreme Court and Article 268 of the paragraph (3) Invite-

Invite Number 8 Year 1981 on the Law of Criminal Events only

restricting Review submission only one time has been adverse

rights The constitutional applicant of PT. In bed);

12. It was announced that by the review of the Review of the No. 1 PK/

Pdt/2004 on 31 January 2004, the PT. The bed is not

may submit a Review Request for the second time and

so on because it is contrary to the norm in

Article 24 of the paragraph (2) Act Number 48 of the Year 2009 of

Judiciary Power and Section 66 paragraph (1) Act Number 14

Year 1985 juncto Act Number 5 Year 2004 juncto Invite-

Invite Number 3 Year 2009 on Second Changes To Invite-

Invite Number 14 1985 about the Supreme Court and Article 268

paragraph (3) Law Number 8 of the Year 1981 on Event Law

Criminal;

13. That the applicant as a private legal entity has qualified

legal standing (legal standing) and has an interest to

deliver the material test rights (judicial review) as intended

7

in the provisions of Article 51 of the paragraph (1) letter a Act of 24/2003 and this

as well as with the Constitutional Court Number 006 /PUU-

III/2005 and Decree Number 11 /PUU-V/2007 has determined 5 (five)

terms of the rights and/or constitutional authority losses as

referred to in Section 51 of the paragraph (1) of the Law No. 24 of 2003,

as follows:

a. the rights and/or constitutional authority of the applicant

provided by UUD 1945;

b. the right and/or constitutional authority is considered to have been

aggrieved by the enactment of the required Act

testing;

c. the rights and/or the authority should be specific (specifically) and

actual or At least a potential that is according to the reasoning that

reasonable is certain to occur;

d. A causal relationship (causal verband) between the loss

is referred to the inexpiring Act

testing;

e. the possibility that with the application being granted then

that constitutional loss will not or no longer occur;

14. That by virtue of the prevailing norm in Section 24 of the paragraph (2)

Act Number 48 of the Year 2009 on the Power of Justice

and Article 66 of the paragraph (1) Act No. 14 of 1985 juncto

In bed) of the kavling land 63 it is legal and not

The Review is returned for justice and material truth;

19. That is the norm in Article 24 of the paragraph (2) Act Number 48 of the Year

2009 on the Power of Justice and Article 66 of the paragraph (1) Act

Number 14 Year 1985 juncto Act No. 5 Year 2004 juncto

Act No. 3 of 2009 on the Second Amendment

Act No. 14 of 1985 on the Supreme Court, Article

263 paragraph (1) and Article 268 paragraph (3) Act No. 8 Year 1981

on Criminal Event Law, conflicting is unconstitutional because

contrary to Article 1 of the paragraph (3), Article 27 verse (1), Section 28D paragraph (1),

Article 28H paragraph (2), Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution that guarantees

fair protection and legal certainty as well as the same treatment in

before the law for all people without anyone are excluded (not

discriminatory) in the frame of the Indonesian Legal State;

20. That under the argument and the fact of the law then in

Article 24 of the paragraph (2) of the Law No. 48 of the Year of 2009 on

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

Year 1985 juncto Act Number 5 Of 2004 juncto Invite-

Invite Number 3 Year 2009 On Second Changes To The Invite-

Invite Number 14 Year 1985 On The Supreme Court, Article 263 paragraph

14

(1) and Article 268 of the paragraph (3) of the Law No. 8 of 1981 on

Criminal Event Law, must be amended by allowing submission

demands that as many people know about what

was ordered to them under the Act, what things

provided to them based on the Act, and the behaviour

what they expect from the official. The presence of clarity and precision

in laws itself is the basis of the judiciary that

is clean and free of the conspirative efforts;

11

11. That according to Prof. Dr. Sri Sumantri, "State of Law" Article 1 of paragraph (3) and/or the existence of a peculilafan

or the error of the judge in applying its law

paragraph (2)

Quite clearly.

2) Law No. 14 Year 1985 juncto Act

Number 5 2004 juncto Act No. 3 Year 2009

about the Supreme Court

Article 66 paragraph (1)

"Request for review may be submitted only 1 (one) times".

3) Law No. 8 of 1981 on Event Law

Criminal Code

28

Article 268 paragraph (3)

"Request for review of a ruling can be

done once".

The provisions above by the Applicant Are Considered

contrary to:

1. Article 1 paragraph (3) of the Basic Law of the Republic of Indonesia of Indonesia Year

1945, "The State of Indonesia is the law state";

2. Article 24 paragraph (2) The Basic Law of the Republic of Indonesia of Indonesia Year

1945, "Judicial power is an independent power to

governing the judiciary to uphold the law and justice";

3. Article 27 paragraph (1) The Basic Law of the State of the Republic of Indonesia Year

1945, "All citizens simultaneously in the law and

governance and shall uphold the law and government with

no exception";

4. Article 28D paragraph (1) The Basic Law of the Republic of Indonesia

In 1945, "Everyone is entitled to the recognition, guarantee, protection

and fair legal certainty as well as the same treatment before

law";

5. Article 28H paragraph (2) of the Basic Law of the Republic of Indonesia

In 1945, "Everyone is entitled to the ease and treatment

specifically to obtain the same opportunities and benefits

equality and justice";

6. Article 28J paragraph (2) of the Basic Law of the Republic of Indonesia of Indonesia Year

1945, " In exercising the rights and freedom of each person is mandatory

to the restrictions specified with the Act with

the meaning of the Amata to ensure recognition and respect for the

rights and freedoms of others and to meet fair demands

in accordance with moral considerations, religious values, security, and

public order in a society democracy ";

According to the Government, the provisions contained in some

The bill above, in particular which governs about

review (PK) has provided guarantees, protection and

fair legal certainty as well as granting freedom to any citizens

the country as Guaranteed and mandated by the Constitution, if

29

there are the restrictions set forth by the Act

is solely in order of respect for the exercise of the right

the human human rights [vide Section 28J paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) Constitution

Basic State of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945.

4. That against the petitioners who stated as

following:

a) Does not give any legal certainty because it has no clarity,

the precision and consistency in the process of legal certainty due to the fact

the law very much found in the field that the filing process

Review back at the Supreme Court more than once.

b) Does not meet the principles of legal certainty and elicits

"constitutional dictatorship" as said by Lawrence.

That against the presumption/argumentation of the petitioner above,

The Government may provide an explanation as follows:

That the Legal Efforts "Rejuvenation" is a form of effort

laws that are exceptional or special, whose use is

done selectively and is used only in special situations, because

already there will be no other legal effort. Accordingly, the use thereof

is limited with special terms namely "(if) the discovery of new evidence (novum)

and/or the presence of a judge or error in applying

the law" [vide explanation of Article 24 verse (1) Act Number 48

The Year 2009 of the Power of Justice]. Thus, the legal effort

"Review of Return" is appropriate if limited can only be submitted one

times [vide Article 66 paragraph (1) Act Number 14 of 1985 juncto

Act Number 5 Year 2004 juncto Act Number 3 of the Year

2009 on Second Amendment to the Law No. 14 Year 1985

on the Supreme Court and Article 268 (3) Act No. 8 Year

1981 on the Book of Law Event Criminal], given the need to be

in compliance with the azas of legal justice and the azas of legal certainty. Legal logic

The applicant states that, "in the process of legal certainty, fact

the law is very much encountered in the field (so) the process of submission

Rejuvenation in the Supreme Court (should be) more than one time",

is unfounded as it would incur legal uncertainty that

caused the matter never finished, other than that it could also create

30

postpones the stress of justice for the seeker of justice itself up to the term

an indeterminable time given the potential for the onset of the facts

The new law (novum) could change the verdict Re-review that

has existed before.

According to the Government, if the applicant is correct and

the application is granted by the Constitutional Court, it can

create a "quick judicial Asas." simple and cheap " and sound

the article that Rejuvenation is not delaying execution [vide Article 268 paragraph

(1) KUHAP expressly states 'Request for review of

a ruling does not suspend or stop the implementation of

the ruling'] is not can be carried out, because the already

ruling has a fixed legal force (inkracht van gewijsde) and has been executed

there is no legal certainty and legal justice, if the Review

Back can be done more than 1 (one) times. The criminal justice system

(criminal justice system) that fair will be a criminal justice system that

rambling, exhausting as well as legal certainty and legal justice is also not

will be obtained.

Based on such explanations and arguments above, the Government

implores the honorable Chairman/Assembly of the Constitutional Court of Justice

who examined, disconnected and courted the testing application of Article 24 of the paragraph

(2) Act Number 48 of the Year 2009 on the Power of Justice and

Article 66 of the paragraph (1) Law Number 14 Year 1985 juncto Invite-

Invite Number 5 Year 2004 juncto Act Number 3 Year 2009

about Second Amendment To The Law No. 14 Year 1985 concerning

Supreme Court and Section 268 verses (3) of the Law No. 8 Year

1981 on the Penal Code Law Act, may give

the following verdict:

1. Rejecting the applicant ' s testing request entirely or at least

certifiable the applicant testing invocation is not acceptable (niet

ontvankelijk verklaard);

2. Received overall Government information;

3. Declaring Section 24 paragraph (2) of the Law Number 48 of the Year 2009

on the Power of Justice and Article 66 of the paragraph (1) of the Act

31

Number 14 Year 1985 juncto Act No. 5 Year 2004 juncto.

Act Number 3 of 2009 on the Second Amendment

Invite Invite Number 14 Year 1985 on the Supreme Court and

Article 268 (3) Ingraph (3), Section 24 of the paragraph (1), Article 27 paragraph (1), Article 28D paragraph (1), Section 28H

paragraph (2), Section 28J paragraph (2) of the Constitution of the Republic of the Republic

Indonesia In 1945;

Therefore, it is necessary to question the interests of the applicant whether it is appropriate

as a parties that regard the right and/or authority

its constitutional consities are harmed over the Enacted sections of the Invite-

Invite, also whether the applicant's constitutional loss that

referred to is specific (special) and actual or at least to be

potential that according to reasonable reasoning. can be ascerable,

and whether there is a causal relationship (causal verband) between the loss

and the expiring Act is to be tested;

III. OBSCUUR LIBEL

That the applicant's also blurred (obscuur libel) because the

The applicant cannot decipher the substance of the conflict that exists between

The article is moted. against the provisions of the Constitution of 1945. The government

argues that the application of the articles as follows:

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

Judiciary Power

35

Article 24

(1) "Against the court ruling that has gained the power

The law remains, the parties concerned may apply

review of the Supreme Court, if there is any

or a certain state defined in the legislation";

(2)" Against a review ruling cannot be done

review";

Description:

Article 24

Verse (1)

Which is referred to" certain things or circumstances " among others is

The discovery of new evidence (novum) and/or peculiaryness or

The judge's error in applying its law.

Verse (2)

It is pretty clear.

the ling) in the Act of testing against

UUD 1945, then first must explain and prove:

A. the existence of its rights and/or its constitutional authority as

referred to "Article 51 of the paragraph (1) and the Explanation Of The Constitutional Court" which

under which it has been harmed by the enactment of an Act which

is subject to testing;

b. The rights and/or constitutional authority of the applicant as a result of

from the enactment of the Act is required.

That of the limitations on constitutional harm,

The Constitutional Court has been provide an understanding and limitation of

the constitutional loss arising out of the enactment of an Act

under Article 51 of the paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Act, must meet 5

(five) terms (vide of Number 006 /PUU-III/2005 and Putermination Number

011 /PUU-V/2007), that is as follows:

a. the constitutional right of the applicant given by UUD 1945;

b. The applicant ' s constitutional rights are considered by the applicant to have

harmed by an Act tested;

c. The intended constitutional loss is specific (specifically)

and actual or at least as potential that according to the reasoning that

reasonable is certain to occur;

46

d. (causal verband) between the loss and

the enactment of the Act was moveed to be tested;

e. It is possible that with the request of a request then

the constitutional loss postured will not or no longer occur.

If all five conditions are not met by the applicant in

apply for testing The Act against the Constitution of 1945, then the applicant

does not have a legal standing (legal standing) as Party

The applicant.

Based on the provisions of Article 51 of the paragraph (1) and the Explanation of the Act

The Constitutional Court and the requirements according to the Constitutional Court of Justice

No. 006 /PUU-III/2005 and the Number 011 /PUU-V/2007, DPR

argue that no constitutional loss or loss

that is potential will occur with the enactment of Article 24 of the paragraph (2)

Act No. 48 of the Year 2009 of the Power of Justice, Article

66 paragraph (1) Act Number 14 Year 1985 juncto Act

Number 5 Year 2004 juncto Act Number 3 of the Year 2009 on

Second Amendment to the Law No. 14 of 1985 on

Supreme Court, Article 268 paragraph (3) Act Number 8 of 1981

on the Penal Code of Law of Criminal Code with the explanation

as follows:

1. That the applicant is a private legal entity under the name of PT.

Hatranggbed is the legal rights holder and owner of the field

land of approximately 5,236 M2 located at Jalan Jenderal

Sudirman Kav. 63, Kelurahan Senayan, Kebayoran Baru District,

South Jakarta. The entitlement of such entitlements according to the applicant is not

contrary to the law as stated in the ruling

PK MARI Number 44 PK/TUN/2000 dated September 9, 2002 in

case of the State Effort;

2. That the applicant felt disadvantaged in his constitutional right by his rejection

a review of No. 1 PK/Pdt/2004 dated January 31, 2004,

the PT. The probed as the applicant cannot apply

a review request is returned for the second time and so on because

47

contrary to the norm contained in the provisions of the Acts of Invite-

Invite a quo which is being asked for testing;

3. That of the applicant's postulate, the House of Representatives view that if

in fact a review could be submitted more than once

as the applicant is postulate, it means the issue that

is put forth by The applicant in the case of a quo is not an issue

constitutionality of a post-article norm a quo directed

testing, but it is the application of a norm, indeed

this is contrary to the norm. a quo is expected to be

testing. Therefore the applicant ' s loss is not the same

once with the constitutionality of an Act norm of the Act

a quo which is being moorted for testing;

4. That on the basis of such a House of view, that there is not

a direct constitutional loss that is directly experienced by the applicant,

and that there is no relevance between the provisions of a quo

testing with the provisions of the provisions of the UUD section of 1945 as a test stone

by the applicant, then the applicant does not meet the requirements legal standing

in case a quo;

Based on those descriptions, the House of Representatives. view that

that the applicant does not have a legal standing (legal standing),