Implementation of the Erga Omnes Principle on the Decision of the Constitutional Court (MK) concerning the Supreme Court's SE (MA) regarding Judicial Review

Ceprudin Ceprudin*  -  Program Studi Hukum Program Doktor (PSHPD) Universitas 17 Agustus (Untag) 1945 Semarang, Indonesia

(*) Corresponding Author

This study aims to analyse the decisions of the Constitutional Court (MK) and Circular Letters (SE) of the Supreme Court (MA) regarding Judicial Review (PK) in criminal cases. In March 2014, through decision No. 34/PUU-XI/2013, the Constitutional Court stated that in a criminal case, a PK may be conducted more than once. The verdict states that Article 268 paragraph (3) of Law no. 8 of 1981 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) is contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. Interestingly, the Supreme Court issued SE No. 7 of 2014 which stipulates that PK is only allowed once. SEMA was signed on December 31, 2014, Chairman of the Supreme Court, Hatta Ali. The existence of the Constitutional Court and SEMA decisions has implications for the dualism of legal practice between only one time and maybe more than once in a PK application. Until now, the SEMA has not been revoked. The existence of the dualism of these rules seems to create uncertainty in the practice of PK law enforcement in Indonesia. Analysing the two legal products from two conflicting state institutions is very important to clarify the procedure for review. The review, which is also often called an extraordinary legal effort, is essential to maintain legal justice and safeguard the basic rights of citizens. In reviewing this fact, we will refer to the principle of Erga Omnes and its correlation with the protection of the basic rights of citizens. The principle of Erga Omnes (applies to everyone in the same case) must be heeded by all state institutions including the Supreme Court. In addition, regulation and its implementation must still pay attention to human rights. So this study uses the normative legal method. Based on the provisional facts presented, the authors hypothesise that SEMA should support the Constitutional Court's decision on PK as an implementation of the principle Erga Omnes and protect the basic rights of citizens. The principle of Erga Omnes and the framework for protecting basic human rights are two things that must be signed in the practice of review.

[]

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK) dan Surat Edaran (SE) Mahkamah Agung (MA) tentang Peninjauan Kembali (PK) dalam perkara pidana. Pada Maret 2014, melalui putusan No. 34/PUU-XI/2013, MK menyatakan bahwa perkara pidana, PK boleh lebih dari satu kali. Putusan itu menyatakan Pasal 268 ayat (3) Undang-Undang No. 8 Tahun 1981 tentang Hukum Acara Pidana (KUHAP) bertentangan dengan UUD NRI 1945. Menariknya, MA menerbitkan SE No. 7 Tahun 2014 yang menentukan bahwa PK hanya dibolehkan satu kali. SEMA ditandatangani pada 31 Desember 2014 Ketua MA, Hatta Ali. Adanya putusan MK dan SEMA itu berimplikasi pada dualisme praktik hukum antara hanya satu kali dan boleh lebih dari satu kali dalam permohonan PK. Hingga kini, SEMA tersebut belum dicabut. Adanya dualisme aturan tersebut seakan menimbulkan ketidakpastian praktik penegakkan hukum PK di Indonesia. Menganalisis dua produk hukum dari dua lembaga negara yang bertentangan itu sangat penting untuk menjernihkan tata cara peninjauan kembali. Peninjauan kembali yang juga kerap disebut upaya hukum luar biasa pada hakikatnya untuk menjaga keadilan hukum dan menjaga hak-hak dasar warga negara. Dalam mengkaji fakta ini, akan merujuk asas erga omnes dan korelasinya dengan perlindungan hak dasar warga negara. Asas erga omnes (berlaku bagi semua orang dalam perkara yang sama) harus diindahkan oleh semua lembaga negara termasuk MA. Selain itu, dalam sebuah aturan dan pelaksanaannya harus tetap memperhatikan hak asasi manusia. Sehingga kajian ini menggunakan metode hukum normatif. Atas fakta sementara yang tesaji, penulis berhipotesa bahwa SEMA seharusnya mendukung putusan MK tentang PK sebagai implementasi asas erga omnes dan melindungi hak-hak dasar warga negara. Asas erga omnes dan kerangka perlindungan hak dasar manusia merupakan dua hal yang harus menjadi rambu-rambu dalam praktik peninjauan kembali.

Keywords: Constitutional Court Decision No. 34/PUU-XI/2013; SEMA No. 7 of 2014; Erga Omnes; Review

  1. Article “Enforcement of Law and Justice in the Context of a State of Law and Democratic Society Based on the 1945 Constitution”, in https://surohmatsupadi.wordpress.com, downloaded on Tuesday, January 27, 2019.
  2. Chakim, M. Lutfi, “Realizing Justice through Legal Efforts Reconsideration after the Decision of the Constitutional Court (Obtain Justice through Extraordinary Legal Remedies Reconsideration after the Decision of the Constitutional Court,” Journal of the Constitution, 12 (2), 2015.
  3. Fadzlun, Budi Sulistyo Nugroho. “Nature of Applicability of the Erga Omnes Principle and Implementation of Constitutional Court Decisions”, Gorontalo Law Review, 2 (2), 2019.
  4. Fajar, Mukti ND and Achmad, Yulianto, Dualism of Normative Legal Research and Empirical Legal Research, Student Library, Yogyakarta, 2010
  5. Fajarwati, Meirina, “Validity of Circular Letter of the Supreme Court (SEMA) Number 7 of 2014 concerning Application for Judicial Review in Criminal Cases From the Perspective of Law Number 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration,” Indonesian Legislation Journal, 14 (02), 2017.
  6. Gumbira, Seno Wibowo, “Problems of Review in the Criminal Justice System After the Decision of the Constitutional Court and Post Sema RI No. 7 of 2014 (A Juridical Analysis and Principles in Criminal Justice Law),” Journal of Law and Development, 46 (1), 2016.
  7. Hakim, Muchamad Lutfi, and Rasji, “Application of the Erga Omnes Principle in the Constitutional Court Decision Number 30/PUU-XVI/2018 Associated with the Negative Legislator Principle,” Adigama Law Journal 1 (2), 2018.
  8. Harsanto, Adi, Jubair and Sulbadana, “Legal Efforts for Judicial Review in Criminal Cases After the Decision of the Constitutional Court,” Catalogical Journal, 5 (3), 2017.
  9. http://berkas.dpr.go.id/pengkajian /files/info_singkat/Info%20Singkat-VII-1-I-P3DI-Januari-2015-9.pdf downloaded on Monday 26 January 2021 The
  10. http://http://nasional. kompas.com/read/2014/03/07/0832116/Putuskan.PK.bisa.Berkalikali.MK.Munculkan.Ketanyaan.Hukum download on Tuesday 27 January 2021.
  11. Ibrahim, Johnny, Theory and Research Methodology of Normative Law, Malang; Banyumedia Publishing, 2006
  12. Law No. 14 of 1985 Concerning the Supreme Court
  13. Law No. 48 of 2009 Concerning Judicial Power.
  14. Law No. 8 of 1981 Concerning the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP).
  15. List Chazawi, Adami, Institute for Criminal Case Review (PK), Jakarta: Sinar Graphic, 2010
  16. Marzuki, Peter Mahmud, Legal Research, Jakarta: Prenadamedia Group. 2010.
  17. Maulidi, Agus, “Questioning the Executorial Power of Final Decisions and Binding the Constitutional Court Questioning the Executorial Force on Final and Binding Decisions of Constitutional Court,” Journal of the Constitution, 16 (2), 2019.
  18. Mertokusumo, Sudikno, Knows the Law; An Introduction, Yogyakarta: Liberty Publishers, 2005.
  19. Meutia, Pityani, “Limiting the Review of Civil Cases The Study of Constitutional Court Decisions No. 108/PUU-XIV/2016”, Indonesian Legislation Journal, 16 (2), 2019.
  20. Muhaimin, Legal Research Methods, Mataram: Mataram University Press, 2020.
  21. Mukhlishin and Sarip, “Justice and Legal Certainty: Questioning the Concept of Legal Justice Hans Kelsen Perspective “Al- Adl” in the Qur'an,” Media Justice: Journal of Legal Studies, 11 (1), 2020.
  22. Nonet, Philippe and Selznck, Philip, Responsive Law, Bandung; Nusamedia, 2008.
  23. Putri, Elisabeth Hapsari, Tukan, Lapon Leonard, Putriyanti, Ayu, “Authority n State Administrative Court Judges Use the Ultra Petita Principle Based on Supreme Court Decision No.5K/TUN/1992 (Case Study Decision No.32/G/2012/PTUN.SMG),” Diponegoro Law Journal , 6(2), 2017 .
  24. Slamet, Titon, Krunia, Sri Harini Dwiyatmi, and Dyah Hapsari P., Legal EducationLegal Studies and Legal Research in Indonesia, Student Library, Yogyakarta, 2013
  25. Waluyo, Bambang, Legal Research in Practice, Jakarta: Sinar Graphic, 1996.
  26. Wantu, Fence, M, “Judge's Obstacles in Creating Legal Certainty, Justice, and Benefit in Civil Courts,” Jurnal Pulpit Hukum, 25 (2), 2013.
  27. www.hukumonline.com/berita/baca/lt535504dacd13f/ujungan-mk-about-pk--menerobos-kesesatan-dalam-peradilan, downloaded on January 25, 2021.
  28. Yurisa, Nadia, Adila, “United, Nyoman, Putra, Jaya., Sukinta, Implementation of Judicial Review in Criminal Cases After the Constitutional Court Decision Number 34/PUU-XI/2013,” Journal of Diponegoro Law Review, 5 (2), 2016.

Walisongo Law Review (Walrev)
Published by Law Studies Program, Fakultas Syariah dan Hukum, Universitas Islam Negeri Walisongo, Semarang
Jl Prof. Dr. Hamka Kampus III Tambakaji Ngaliyan Semarang 50185
Phone: +62 852-2530-0659
Website: https://fsh.walisongo.ac.id/
Email: walrev.journal@walisongo.ac.id

ISSN: 2715-3347 (print)
ISSN: 2722-0400 (online)

This work is licensed under a

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a 
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

 
apps