The Submission of Judicial Review by the Public Prosecutor Following the Decision of the Constitutional Court No 20/PUU-XXI/2023 (Indonesia): an Examination of Legal Protection for the Rights of the Convicted

Rahmawati Rahmawati, Abdul Madjid, Setiawan Noedajasakti

Abstract

This study aims to analyse the essence of the application for reconsideration by convicts and their heirs post the Constitutional Court Decision No 20/PUU-XXI/2023 and to evaluate the reconsideration by the Public Prosecutor from the perspective of the principle of legal protection of the rights of convicts. The research methodology employs a conceptual, legislative, and historical approach. Primary legal materials consist of laws and judgments, while secondary legal materials encompass textbooks, journals, and commentaries on court decisions. The legal materials are analysed qualitatively through content analysis, identifying relevant concepts within the criminal justice system. The research findings indicate that the procedure for convicts to apply for reconsideration is tightly regulated by Article 263 and Article 264 of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP). Convicts must submit a request for reconsideration that includes the reasons underlying the request. This formal requirement must be fulfilled for the reconsideration request to be accepted. The Constitutional Court Decision No 20/PUU-XXI/2023 has significant implications for legal certainty, particularly regarding the right of the Public Prosecutor to submit a reconsideration request. The decision states that the right to submit a reconsideration request is only held by convicts or their heirs, in line with Constitutional Court Decision No 33/PUU-XIV/2016. This is aimed at preserving legal certainty and avoiding ambiguous interpretations of the provisions in the KUHAP. The principle of legal protection of the rights of convicts through reconsideration is crucial to ensure that convicts have fair and transparent access to the legal process. Although the Constitutional Court's decision has limited the Public Prosecutor's right to submit a reconsideration request, it aligns with the principle of protection of convicts' rights to ensure that the legal process is conducted fairly and according to the applicable law.

10.22178/pos.95-12


Keywords


Constitutional Court Decision; Legal Protection; Public Prosecutor; Rights of the Convicted; Submission of Judicial Review

Full Text:

PDF


References


1. Qamar, N. (2016). Hak asasi manusia dalam negara hukum demokrasi [Human Rights in Democratiche the Rechtsstaat]]. Jakarta : Sinar Grafika (in Indonesian).

2. Mawuntu, J. (2018). Upaya Hukum Terdakwa Terhadap Putusan Hakim Dalam Perkara Pidana [Defendant's Legal Remedies Against Judges' Verdicts in Criminal Cases]. LEX CRIMEN, 7(1), 21–27 (in Indonesian).

3. Farikhah, M. (2021). The Judicial Pardon Arrangement as a Method of Court Decision in the Reform of Indonesian Criminal Law Procedure. PADJADJARAN Jurnal Ilmu Hukum (Journal of Law), 8(1), 1–25. doi: 10.22304/pjih.v8n1.a1

4. Soeparman, P. (2007). Pengaturan hak mengajukan upaya hukum peninjauan kembali dalam perkara pidana bagi korban kejahatan [Regulation of the right to file a judicial review in criminal cases for victims of crime]. Bandung: Refika Aditama (in Indonesian).

5. Nugroho, A. F. (2022). Legal Protection For Victims Of Fair Trial Rights As A Form Of Human Rights Protection In The Indonesian Justice System. Policy, Law, Notary And Regulatory Issues, 2(1), 1–12. doi: 10.55047/polri.v2i1.493

6. Arrohim, M. B., Sunarno, H. W., & Wahyuningsih, S. E. (2020). Analysis of Judicial Application of Criminal Penalty Against Notary [Land Deed Officials Conducting Making Crime of the Fake Authentic Deed in State Court of Semarang]. Jurnal Akta, 7(2) (in Indonesian).

7. Muhammad, A. A., Djatmika, P., Puspitawati, D., & Aprilianda, N. (2021). The Basis for the Philosophy of Legal Protection for Death Penalty Convicts Who Are Not Executed Immediately After the Verdict Becoming Legally Binding. International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding, 8(12), 584. doi: 10.18415/ijmmu.v8i12.3237

8. Prodjohamidjojo, M. (1982). Komentar atas KUHAP [Commentary on the Criminal Procedure Code]. Jakarta: Pradya Paramitha (in Indonesian).

9. Prakoso, D. (1987). Upaya Hukum yang Diatur di dalam KUHAP [Legal Remedies Set out in the Criminal Procedure Code]. Jakarta: Aksara Persada Indonesia (in Indonesian).

10. Harahap, M. Y. (2007). Pembahasan permasalahan dan penerapan KUHAP [Discussion of issues and application of the Criminal Procedure Code]. Jakarta: Ghalia (in Indonesian).

11. Zahro, F. (2016). Upaya Hukum Peninjauan Kembali Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No 34/Puu-Xi/2013 Dalam Rangka Mewujudkan Keadilan Dan Kepastian Hukum [Legal Remedies for Judicial Review after Constitutional Court Decision No 34/Puu-Xi/2013 in the Context of Realising Justice and Legal Certainty]. Retrieved from http://digilib.uinsa.ac.id/5630 (in Indonesian).

12. Muhlizi, A. F. (2015). Peninjauan Kembali Dalam Perkara Pidana Yang Berkeadilan Dan Berkepastian Hukum. Jurnal Yudisial, 8(2), 145–166 (in Indonesian).

13. Pratama, N. A. (2022). Meaningful Participation Sebagai Upaya Kompromi Idee Des Recht Pasca Putusan Mk No. 91/Puu-Xviii/2020 [Meaningful Participation as an Effort to Compromise Idee Des Recht After Mk Decision No. 91/Puu-Xviii/2020]. Crepido, 4(2), 137–147. doi: 10.14710/crepido.4.2.137-147 (in Indonesian).


Article Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Metrics powered by PLOS ALM

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Bookmark and Share


Copyright (c) 2023 Rahmawati, Abdul Madjid, Setiawan Noedajasakti

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