scholarly journals Mewujudkan Keadilan Melalui Upaya Hukum Peninjauan Kembali pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 328
Author(s):  
M. Lutfi Chakim
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The Public ◽  
Binding Force ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Legal Remedy ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Pros And Cons

The reconsideration is an extraordinary legal remedy to the decision of Court that have legally binding (inkracht van gewisjde). The Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 34/PUU-XI/2013 stated that extraordinary legal remedy aims to obtain justice and truth material, so the provisions of Article 268 paragraph (3) Criminal Procedure Code states that, “request reconsideration of a decision can only be done once only” contrary to the 1945 Constitution and does not have binding force. The decision of Constitutional Court raises the pros and cons, on one side there are statements that reconsideration more than once is an effort to protect the rights of the public in obtaining justice, but on the other side there are statements that reconsideration is more than once is a violation of the principle of legal certainty. After analyzing the decision of the Constitutional Court No. 34/PUU-XI/2013  it could be concluded that, first, the reconsideration is more than once in accordance with the public interest to obtain justice in law enforcement, because in obtaining justice and truth material can not be limited by time. Second, the decision of the Constitutional Court are final and binding, despite raises the pros and cons, then all are required to implement the decision of the Constitutional Court. Therefore, the Supreme Court is expected to soon complete the Regulation of the Supreme Court about filing reconsideration in criminal cases by adjusting the decision of the Constitutional Court.

scholarly journals ASPEK HUKUM PENINJAUAN KEMBALI LEBIH DARI SATU KALI DALAM PERKARA PIDANA (PERSPEKTIF PENEGAKAN KEADILAN, KEPASTIAN DAN KEMANFAATAN HUKUM)

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 335
Author(s):  
Budi Suhariyanto
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Aspects ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
State Agencies ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Matters

Constitutional Court Decision No. 34 / PUU-XI / 2013 has opened the space PK is not just one time as provided for by the Article 268 paragraph (3) Criminal Procedure Code so that PK can be done many times during found and submission of PK Novum although it has done previously. Perspective is the basis of this decision is justice. Responding to the verdict of the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court publishes SEMA No. 7 Year 2014 on Reconsideration Request Submission In Criminal Case. Through the SEMA Supreme Court warned that provisions PK only once outside the Article 268 Criminal Procedure Code which was canceled by the Constitutional Court, therefore, PK criminal cases (in a similar case) is more than 1 (one) can not be accepted. Restrictions on the desired PK criminal case the Supreme Court is to provide legal certainty in the process of final settlement of criminal matters. Government through Minister of Law and Human Rights take strategic steps in resolving the legal expediency vision polemic filing legal remedies PK criminal cases, by coordinating state agencies and relevant ministries so as to produce an agreement that filing PK many times can not be executed until the issuance of PP. Therefore still valid set forth in the Judicial Authority Law and the Law on the Supreme Court.Keywords : Legal Aspects, Reconsideration, Criminal Case

scholarly journals Optimalisasi Peran Hakim Agung dalam Penyelesaian Perkara Kasasi dan Peninjauan Kembali

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 373
Author(s):  
Dudu Duswara Machmudin
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Law Enforcement Agencies ◽  
Judicial Process ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Before And After ◽  
The One

This article aims to provide knowledge and understanding on the functions of the state law enforcement agencies in Indonesia. Differences of powers and functions of law enforcement agencies such as the Supreme Court, Attorney General’s Office and the Constitutional Court needs to be understood in depth. Furthermore, given the problems in all courts all over the world which is, among others, the slow settlement of cases, this article describes and analyses the role of Supreme Court Justices in resolving cassation and review cases before and after the issuance of the decree of the Chief Justice Number 119/KMA/SK/VII/2013 regarding the determination of the Day of Deliberation and Pronouncement and Number 214/KMA/SK/XII/2104 concerning Time Period for the Handling of Cases at the Supreme Court. However, when Constitutional Court pronounced Ruling Number 34/PUU-XI/2013 a problem arises in which the products of the two state judicial bodies seem to be inconsistent, especially in the framework for the resolution of criminal cases. On the one hand, the Supreme Court wants the creation of a judicial process that is simple, speedy, and low cost through the strengthening of the two products above, but on the    other hand the Constitutional Court through its award extend the time span of litigation process for the settlement of review cases which can be done repeatedly. Thus, in order to provide legal certainty, the Supreme Court issued Supreme Court Circular Number 7 Year 2014 which essentially affirms that the petition for review in criminal cases is limited only one time based on other legal basis namely Judicial Authority Act and Supreme Court Act.

scholarly journals Tinjauan Yuridis Pengajuan Permohonan Peninjauan Kembali pada Perkara Pidana dalam Sistem Hukum Indonesia

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 99-105
Author(s):  
I Made Widi Adi Peremana ◽  
A. A. Sagung Laksmi Dewi ◽  
Ni Made Sukaryati Karma
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Library Research ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Circular Letter ◽  
The Republic

The study of this research is the submission of requests for reconsideration in criminal cases in the Indonesian legal system which became a polemic after the issuance of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 34 / XI-PUU / 2013 and Circular Letter of the Supreme Court (SEMA) Number 7 of 2014 concerning Submission of Reappeals in Cases Criminal. The research objectives to be achieved, in this case, are the regulation of legal reconsideration efforts in Indonesia and the procedure for submitting a request for review in the Indonesian system. Researchers use a normative juridical approach or library research or doctrinal legal research which can be interpreted as legal research by examining library materials and secondary materials. This study illustrates that the regulations for reconsideration in the legal system in Indonesia are based on various regulations, namely Law Number 8 of 1981 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code, Law No. 3 of 2009 concerning the Supreme Court, Law no. 48 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power, Circular Letter of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia No. 7 of 2014 concerning Review of Criminal Cases and Submission of Reconsiderations at this time refers to the provisions of the Circular Letter of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia No. 7 of 2014 concerning Reconsideration in Criminal Cases.  

scholarly journals Transformation of the Judiciary in Turkmenistan after 1991. Aspects of Development of Administrative Judiciary

2021 ◽  
pp. 44-56
Author(s):  
Roman Burenko
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Presidential Decree ◽  
Arbitration Procedure ◽  
Local Courts ◽  
The Republic

The article examines the process of formation of the Turkmen judicial system after Turkmenistan declared independence in 1991. The stages of reforming and transformation of the judicial system in the Republic of Turkmenistan in different periods are studied: 1990–2000, 2001–2020. In addition, the structure of the judicial system of Turkmenistan, the system of courts of general jurisdiction (regional courts and local courts), the system of arbitration courts, judicial boards of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Turkmenistan (in civil cases, arbitration cases, administrative cases, criminal cases) is analyzed, and the judicial selfgovernment bodies of the Republic of Turkmenistan are also investigated: the National Conference of Judges, the Qualification Board of Judges, the Council of People’s Assessors at district courts. In addition, the norms of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Turkmenistan, the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Republic of Turkmenistan and the Code of the Republic of Turkmenistan on Administrative Procedures on issues arising from administrative and public legal relations are analyzed. The article draws attention to the lack of functioning of the constitutional judicial system and the Constitutional Court in the Republic of Turkmenistan, as well as the need to establish constitutional control over normative acts of the legislative and executive branches of the republic in the country. It is proposed to establish administrative courts in Turkmenistan in all regional centres of the country and the capital of the republic, as well as to adopt the Code of Administrative Procedure of Turkmenistan in the country. The article draws attention to the fact that the creation or liquidation of arbitration, regional or local courts would be carried out not only on the basis of a Presidential Decree, but also on the basis of a proposal of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Turkmenistan with the consent of the Parliament of the Republic of Turkmenistan.

scholarly journals On initiative of Supreme Court of Cassation for amendments to the Civil Procedure Code

2020 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 117-140
Author(s):  
Nikola Bodiroga
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
General Procedure ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Main Role ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Legal Remedy ◽  
General Importance ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
New Interpretation

The current Civil Procedure Code has been in force since February 1, 2012. Its provisions dealing with a special procedure for the protection of collective interests, provisions regulating legal counsel, and provisions related to deadline for requesting reopening of proceedings have been quashed by the Constitutional Court. Signifi cant changes to the Civil Procedure Code have been passed by the Serbian Parliament in 2014. According to these changes, appeal on points of law has become widely accessible for parties to the proceedings. The threshold for lodging this extraordinary legal remedy has been reduced from 100.000 to 40.000 euros in the general procedure, and from 300.000 euros to 100.000 euros in commercial disputes. Regardless of that threshold, appeal on the points of law has become admissible if the second instance court has reversed the judgment of the first instance court and if the second instance court has adopted appeal, quashed the judgement of the first instance court and decided on the claims of the parties. If these conditions for lodging appeal on the points of law have not been met, a party may lodge an appeal on the points of law if the Supreme Court of Cassation declares this legal remedy admissible in order to unify jurisprudence, or to provide new interpretation of the law, or to consider some other issues of general importance. These legislative changes have turned appeal on the points of law into ordinary legal remedy and prevented the Supreme Court of Cassation to perform its main role in our judicial system. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Cassation has proposed necessary changes to the Civil Procedure Code. In this paper, we have analysed these proposals and their impact on the protection of rights of the parties.

scholarly journals IMPLEMENTASI TUGAS HAKIM PENGAWAS DAN PENGAMAT DALAM PENGAWASAN DAN PENGAMATAN TERHADAP NARAPIDANA (Kajian di Lembaga Pemasyarakatan Klas II A Purwokerto)

2010 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dessy Perdani Yuris PS
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Internal Resistance ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Research Results ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court

The implementation of court judgments needs to be observed and perceived, thus the birth of Supervisor and Observer Judge Institution by Law No. 8 of 1981. The position of a Judge is not simply responsible for imposition of punishment, but also have to responsible for completion of punishment term by inmates in Correctional Institute by appropriate pattern and program of counseling. Besides in article 277 KUHAP till article 288 KUHAP it is charged another task as supervisor and observer of the court decision. The research results show that the implementation of the Supervisory Judge task and Observers in the execution of court decisions in Purwokerto Penitentiary is based on the Criminal Procedure Code Article 277 through Article 283 Criminal Procedure Code, the implementing regulations of the Supreme Court Circular No. RI. No. 7 of 1985. Supervisory Judge in the performance of duties and Observers in Purwokerto Penitentiary still met the constraints that are internal or external, internal resistance from law enforcement and the factors of factor means or facilities. Then the external barriers are the ruling factor.Keywords : Supervisor and Observer Judge, Purwokerto Penitentiary and prisoner

scholarly journals KAJIAN YURIDIS TERHADAP PENEGASAN HIEARAKI PERATURAN PERUNDANG-UNDANGAN DI INDONESIA DALAM PERSPEKTIF STUFEN THEORIE

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 95
Author(s):  
Muhammad Yusrizal Adi Syaputra
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
State Institutions ◽  
Binding Force ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Uncertainty

Rule lower against the rules of higher then lower regulation it can test the material (judicial review) to be canceled entirely or partially canceled. The assertion of hierarchy intended to prevent overlap between legislation that could give rise to legal uncertainty. Position regulations set by the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) House of Representatives (DPR), the Regional Representatives Council (DPD), the Supreme Court (MA), the Constitutional Court (MK), the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK), Commission Judicial (KY) , Bank Indonesia (BI), the Minister, the Agency, Organization, or commissions, in the Indonesian legal system recognized by Act No. 12 of 2011 either were born because of higher regulatory mandate and within the scope and authority of the minister. Thus, no doubt that the regulations set by state institutions, have binding force that must be obeyed by the parties set forth therein. While the Regulations issued policy also recognized as an Freies Ermessen in the execution of its duties and functions.<br /><br />

scholarly journals Penal Mediation as the Concept of Restorative Justice in the Draft Criminal Procedure Code

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Emmanuel Ariananto Waluyo Adi
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Restorative Justice ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Law Enforcement Agencies ◽  
The Public ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Private Realm ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Law

The law recognizes both litigation and non-litigation settlement mechanisms, but it is almost not explicitly regulated for non-litigation settlement in criminal cases. Non-litigation in criminal recognizes the concept of restorative justice for the public interest, which is different from the private realm in civil. The concept of restorative justice exists to rehabilitate the state of criminals so that they are accepted back into the community. The concept of restorative justice is manifested in the mediation mechanism in criminal law in the form of penal mediation, but penal mediation does not yet have a legal umbrella. The non-progressive normative application of the law results in the overcapacity of prisons/remand centres. Currently, the Draft Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter as RKUHAP) is being drafted, which does not yet regulate the application of non-litigation solutions. Later, it can be applied by law enforcement agencies so that problems such as overcapacity prisons are resolved and the creation of peaceful order in the community. This study aims to provide a view of the concept of penal mediation in criminal procedural law to serve as an aspiration for the consideration of the parties involved in the preparation of the substance of the RKUHAP. This paper uses a normative approach with technical analysis using hermeneutic analysis and interpretation methods.

scholarly journals Penerapan Asas Audi Alteram Et Partem Pada Perkara Judicial review Di Mahkamah Agung

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 37
Author(s):  
Asep Syarifuddin Hidayat
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Public ◽  
Trial Process ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Impact

Abstract.Article 13 paragraph 1 of Act Number 48 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power states that all court hearings are open to the public, unless the Act says otherwise. Therefore, a judicial review trial must be open to the public. If the trial process of the judicial review is carried out in a closed manner, it can be considered a legal defect, because it is contrary to Article 13 paragraph (3) of the Law. The Law of the Supreme Court is not regulated that the judicial review is closed, because in the judicial review there is a need for openness or principle of audiences of parties or litigants must be given the opportunity to provide information and express their opinions, including the defendant as the maker of Legislation invitation under the law, so that the impact of the decision will need to be involved.Keywords: Judicial Review, Audi Alteram Et Partem Principle, Supreme Court, Constitutional Court Abstrak.Pasal 13 ayat 1 Undang-Undang Nomor 48 Tahun 2009 tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman menyebutkan semua sidang pemeriksaan pengadilan terbuka untuk umum, kecuali Undang-Undang berkata lain. Oleh karena itu,  judicial review persidangan harus dilakukan terbuka untuk umum. Apabila proses persidangan judicial review ini dilakukan secara tertutup, maka dapat dinilai cacat hukum karena bertentangan dengan Pasal 13 ayat (3) Undang-Undang tersebut. Undang-Undang Mahkamah Agung pun tidak diatur bahwa persidangan judicial review bersifat tertutup, karena dalam judicial review perlu adanya keterbukaan atau asas audi alteram et partem atau pihak-pihak yang berperkara harus diberi kesempatan untuk memberikan keterangan dan menyampaikan pendapatnya termasuk pihak termohon sebagai  pembuat Peraturan Perundang-Undangan di bawah Undang-Undang sehingga akan terkena dampak putusan perlu dilibatkan.Kata Kunci: Judicial Review, Asas Audi Alteram Et Partem, Mahkamah Agung, Mahkamah Konstitusi.

PENJARA TERHADAP DOKTER DALAM PERSPEKTIF MENGIKATNYA PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI DAN PEMIDANAAN INTEGRATIF

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 59
Author(s):  
Warih Anjari
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Medical Profession ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Court Ruling ◽  
Binding Force ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Negative Impacts ◽  
Sentencing Theory

ABSTRAKKekuatan mengikat putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi bersifat final dan mengikat. Namun Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 4/PUU-V/2007 tidak ditaati oleh Putusan Nomor 1110 K/Pid.Sus/2012. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi telah menganulir ancaman pidana penjara dalam Pasal 75 ayat (1), Pasal 76, dan Pasal 79 Undang-Undang Nomor 29 Tahun 2004 tentang Praktik Kedokteran. Putusan Mahkamah Agung tetap menjatuhkan pidana penjara terhadap dokter yang melanggar pasal tersebut. Kondisi ini menimbulkan ketidaksesuaian antara kekuatan mengikat putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi dan tujuan penjatuhan pidana yang integratif berdasarkan Pancasila. Masalah dalam tulisan ini adalah bagaimanakah implikasi Putusan Nomor 1110 K/Pid.Sus/2012 dikaitkan dengan kekuatan mengikat Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi? Dan bagaimanakah implikasi penjatuhan pidana penjara bagi dokter yang tercantum dalam Putusan Nomor 1110 K/ Pid.Sus/2012 dikaitkan dengan teori tujuan pemidanaan integratif? Metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam tulisan ini adalah metode penelitian yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan kasus. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi memiliki sifat erga ormes sehingga harus diikuti oleh Mahkamah Agung. Pidana penjara terhadap dokter yang tidak menggunakan izin praktik tidak dapat mencapai tujuan pemidanaan integratif. Akibatnya pelayanan kesehatan bagi masyarakat tidak terlayani, dan merugikan profesi dokter. Kesimpulannya adalah putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi tidak mempunyai kekuatan mengikat sehingga menjadi tidak efektif dan tujuan pemidanaan integratif berdasarkan Pancasila tidak tercapai.Kata kunci: pidana penjara, kekuatan putusan, tujuan pemidanaan integratif.ABSTRACTThe binding force of the Constitutional Court ruling is final. However, the Supreme Court Decision Number 1110 K/Pid.Sus/2012 does not abide by the Constitutional Court Decision Number 4/PUU-V/2007. The Constitutional Court Decision has annulled the imprisonment penalties in Article 75 paragraph (1), Article 76, Article 79 of Law Number 29 of 2004 concerning Medical Practices. The Supreme Court in its decision imposed the sanction of imprisonment on the doctors violating the aforementioned articles. This condition lead to such a discrepancy between the final and binding decision of the Constitutional Court and the integrated purposes of sentencing under Pancasila. Formulation of the problems in this analysis meets some points on how the implication of the Supreme Court Decision Number 1110 K/Pid.Sus/2012 regarding the binding force of the Constitutional Court Decision; and how the implication of the imposition of imprisonment sanction for a list of doctors stated in the Supreme Court Decision Number 1110 K/Pid.Sus/2012 in terms of integrated objective of sentencing theory. The research method is a normative juridical by case-based approach. The nature of the decision of the Constitutional Court is erga omnes, that obliges the Supreme Court to act upon. The sanction of imprisonment against the doctors with no consent practices cannot reach the integrated purpose of sentencing. As a consequence, the health services to communities are abandoned and this bring negative impacts on medical profession. To be brief, the decision of the Constitutional Court is considered futile with no binding force, accordingly the integrated purpose of sentencing under Pancasila could not be achieved.Keywords: imprisonment, binding force of ruling, integrated purpose of sentencing.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document