ANTARA KEADILAN DAN KEPASTIAN HUKUM: KONFLIK YUDISIAL MAHKAMAH AGUNG –MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI (STUDI KASUS PENINJAUAN KEMBALI)

Cindy Cherya

Abstract


Although the positions of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court are parallel as stipulated in Article 24 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, these two institutions are still limited by different demarcation lines of authority. However, on a practical level, there are often conflicts between the boundaries of their relationship and authority, for example related to judicial review. This polemic stems from the Constitutional Court Decision Number 34/PUU-XI/2013 which in its decision annulled “Article 268 paragraph (3) of Criminal Procedure Code. As for Article 268 paragraph (3): "a request for review of a decision can only be made once". Historically and philosophically, judicial review was born as a form of state responsibility in protecting the interests and restoring justice and the rights of prisoners who have been illegally confiscated by the state. With the Constitutional Court's Decision, judicial review can be carried out more than once, which has the potential to make the trial process protracted and not in accordance with the litis finiri oportet principle (every case must have an end). Following up on the juridical implications, the Supreme Court issued a Supreme Court Circular Number 7 of 2014 which again contradicted the Constitutional Court's Decision Number 34/PUU-XI/2013 by allowing the judicial review to be submitted only once. The purpose of this study is to describe the relevance of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 34/PUU-XI/2013 and Supreme Court Circular Number 7 of 2014 regarding the Judicial Review in the perspective of justice and legal certainty and its implications for the litis finiri oportet principle in criminal procedural law in Indonesia. Sources of legal materials used in this research are primary legal materials in the form of legislation and court decisions as well as secondary legal materials in the form of legal literature and research results.

Full Text:

PDF

References


A. Buku & Jurnal Agung Maulidi, Mohammad, Problematika Hukum Implementasi Putusan Final dan Mengikat Mahkamah Konstitusi Perspektif Negara Hukum, Jurnal Hukum Ius Quia Iustum, No. 4, Vol. 24, (Oktober 2017): 535 – 557. Alexy, Robert, Legal Certainty and Correctness, Ratio Juris 28, 2015. Allika Devi, Zaskia, Kajian Yuridis Upaya Peninjauan Kembali Lebih Dari Satu Kali Terhadap Asas Litis Finiri Oportet Dalam Perkara Pidana [skripsi], Surakarta, Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta. Asshiddiqie, Jimly, Konstitusi dan Konstitusionalisme Indonesia, Jakarta: Mahkamah Konstitusi RI dan Pusat Studi Hukum Tata Negara FHUI, 2004.

Asshiddiqie, Jimly, Teori Hans Kelsen Tentang Hukum, Jakarta: Konstitusi Pers, 2009. Baso Ence, Irianto Negara Hukum dan Hak Uji Konstitusionalitas Mahkamah Konstitusi: Telaah terhadap kewenangan Mahkamah Konstitusi, Bandung: Alumni, 2008. Chakim, Luthfi, Mewujudkan Keadilan Melalui Upaya Hukum Peninjauan Kembali Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi, Jurnal Konstitusi, Volume 12, Nomor 2, (Juni 2015).

Fauzan, Uzair, Prasetyo, Heru, John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (terjemahan), Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar, 2006. Gumbira, Seno Wibowo, Problematika Peninjauan Kembali dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi dan Pasca Sema RI No. 7 Tahun 2014 (Suatu Analisa Yuridis dan Asas-Asas Dalam Hukum Peradilan Pidana), Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan 46 No. 1 (2016): 106-119. Herri Swantoro, Efa Laela Fakhriah, dan Isis Ikhwansyah, “Permohonan Upaya Hukum Peninjauan Kembali Kedua Kali Berbasis Keadilan dan Kepastian Hukum,” Jurnal Mimbar Hukum, Vol. 29, No.2, (Juni, 2017). Huda, Ni’matul, Hukum Tata Negara Indonesia, Jakarta: Rajawali Press, 2001.

Isra Saldi, Titik Singgung Wewenang Mahkamah Agung dengan Mahkamah Konstitusi, Makalah disampaikan dalam Seminar “Titik Singgung Wewenang antara Mahkamah Agung dan Mahkamah Konstitusi”, Jakarta: Mahkamah Agung, 2014. Malik, Telaah Makna Hukum Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi yang Final dan Mengikat, dalam Jurnal Konstitusi, Volume 6, Nomor 1, April 2009

Mertokusumo, Sudikno, Penemuan Hukum: Sebuah Pengantar, Yogyakarta: Liberty,1993.

P. Hadi, Sudharto, Dimensi Hukum Pembangunan, Semarang: UNDIP, 2002. Rahardjo, Satjipto, Ilmu Hukum, Bandung: Citra Aditya Bhakti, 2000. Rahardjo, Satjipto, Hukum Progresif: Sebuah Sintesa Hukum Indonesia, Yogyakarta: Genta Publishing, 2009. B. Peraturan Perundang-undangan

Undang-undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945

Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Pidana

Undang-undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 8 Tahun 1981 tentang Hukum Acara Pidana

Undang-undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 24 Tahun 2003 tentang Mahkamah Konstitusi,

Undang-undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 48 Tahun 2009 tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman

Undang-undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 3 Tahun 2009 tentang Mahkamah Agung

Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor: 16/PUU-VIII/2010.

Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor: 34/PUU-XI/2013.

Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor: 66/PUU-XIII/2015.

Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor: 45/PUU-XIII/2015.

Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia Nomor 1 Tahun 1980 tentang Peninjauan Kembali Putusan yang telah Memperoleh Kekuatan Hukum Tetap

Surat Edaran Mahkamah Agung Nomor 7 Tahun 2014 tentang Pengajuan Permohonan Peninjauan Kembali dalam Perkara Pidana. C. Internet Institute Criminal Justice Reform, “Berdasarkan Tiga Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi, Mahkamah Agung harus segera mencabut SEMA No 7 Tahun 2014”, https://icjr.or.id/berdasarkan-tiga-putusan-

mahkamah-konstitusi-mahkamah-agung-harus-segera-mencabut-sema-no-7-tahun-2014/, diakses pada 13 Desember 2019. Oliver Purba, David, Setelah PK Ditolak MA, Ahok Tak Bisa Mengajukan Lagi, https://megapolitan.kompas.com/read/2018/03/26/18212901/setelah-pk-ditolak-ma-ahok-tak-bisa-mengajukan-lagi, diakses pada 15 Desember 2019.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.33021/ph.v4i2.1719

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2021 Problematika Hukum



View My Stats

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