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 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 MEDIATION EXISTENCE CRIMINAL PENAL SETTLEMENT

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 38
Author(s):  
Erma Rusdiana
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Judicial Process ◽  
The Public ◽  
The People ◽  
Religious Law ◽  
The One

Indonesian Constitution states that all people of Indonesia are entitled to equal treatment before the law as stated in Article 28 D, paragraph 1 of the 1945 Constitution, but they are not always easily access it. The principle of justice is simple, fast and low cost can’t be reached by most people. Currently, there is also a change and dynamics of complex societies and regulations in some legislation. It also has implications on the public nature of the criminal law has shifted its relative entered the private sphere with known and practiced penal<em> </em>mediation.<strong> </strong>Issues raised in this paper is the concept of criminal law enforcement based on the existence of pluralistic and penal mediation as an alternative solution-in the practice of the criminal settlement. Of the studies that have been done that the concept of legal pluralism is no longer emphasizes the dichotomy between the legal system of the state on the one hand with the legal system of the people folk law and religious law on the other side. That law enforcement-based pluralistic more emphasis on interaction and co-existence of the workings of the various legal systems that affect the operation of norms, processes and institutions in masyarakat.Polarisasi law and penal mediation mechanisms can do, as long as it is earnestly desired by all parties ( suspects and victims), as well as to reach a wider interest, namely the maintenance of social harmony. In summary penal mediation would have positive implications philosophically that achieved justice done fast, simple and inexpensive because the parties involved are relatively small compared through the judicial process with the components of the Criminal Justice System

scholarly journals Registration of Second FIR (First Information Report) in Sughran Bibi Case: A Landmark Judgement of the Supreme Court of Pakistan

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-122
Author(s):  
Rais Nouman Ahmad ◽  
Faiz Bakhsh ◽  
M. Danyal Khan ◽  
Sidra Kanwal
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Significant Role ◽  
Criminal Trial ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
Law Enforcement Agencies ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Police Report ◽  
The Status

The registration of First Information Report (FIR) has remained a challenging area for the judicial system of Pakistan; the multiplicity of the FIRs means separate investigation and separate police report. Precedents were available far and against the second FIR which had been creating perplexity and nuisance for law enforcement agencies. First Information Report is contaminated by the inclusion of exaggerated facts by the aggrieved parties. Moreover, there are several allegations on the working of police in Pakistan for drafting the FIR arbitrarily. Although FIR is a mere document to report the incident, however, it has gained a significant role in deciding the fate of a criminal trial in Pakistan. Therefore, it is imperative to examine the status of FIR in criminal-trail framework of Pakistan. To do this, Sughran Bibi Case is very significant in interpreting the status of multiplicity of FIRs in the criminal trail framework. Seven judges of esteemed Supreme Court decided the fate of second FIR in this human rights case. The study investigates the doctrinal aspects of the judgement by presenting a theoretical examination of the status of FIR, its evidentiary value, and effectiveness in the criminal trial framework.  

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

Cumulative Grounds in Petitions for Appellate Review and the Right to Fair Judicial Process

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 304-319
Author(s):  
Svetlana Ficová
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Slovak Republic ◽  
Crucial Issue ◽  
Judicial Process ◽  
Horizontal Structure ◽  
Short Period ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Procedural Error ◽  
The One ◽  
The Right

SummaryAfter re-codification of civil law in the Slovak Republic, the rulings of the Supreme Court Special Panel are now binding on all panels of the Supreme Court. The first ruling dealt with a crucial issue of admissibility of appellate review in case of several grounds simultaneously shown in a petition for appellate review. According to the Special Panel’s opinion, cumulative grounds are not admissible either within vertical or horizontal structure. That is, it is not possible to combine the grounds for appellate review defined in the two sections of the Civil Litigation Procedure Code (§ 420 and § 421), or several grounds under the same section (§ 420). Should this occur, the court of appellate review will limit its considerations only to a procedural error specified in § 420, more specifically, the one defined earlier in order of precedence. Within a short period of time, the Supreme Court revised its opinion, and the Special Panel made a contrary ruling by which the cumulative grounds of appellate review were admitted. The purpose of this paper is to consider these two different decisions and to present also some other arguments.

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 INDONESIAN JUSTICE LEGAL POLITICS POST AMENDMENT OF 1945 CONSTITUTION

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-56
Author(s):  
Aladin Sirait
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Code Of Ethics ◽  
Code Of Conduct ◽  
State Institution ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Creation

The essence of change in the field of justice after the amendment is a change in the system of judicial power at the constitutional and statutory levels. The creation of new supreme judicial institutions namely the Constitutional Court, in addition to the Supreme Court as the bearer and executor of the highest judicial powers in the presence of an independent Judicial Commission and cannot be separated from the powers of the judiciary. Legal politics that gave birth to the Constitutional Court Institution in its scope of duties and authority has played a large and important role in the goal of realizing justice. The Judicial Commission in its duties and authorities can substantially improve law enforcement in the environment and justice within the Supreme Court by proposing the appointment of a Chief Justice to the House of Representatives (DPR). The Supreme Court made progress with the issuance of Guidelines for the Implementation of Oversight within the Judiciary and the Joint Decree of the Chair of the Supreme Court and the Chair of the Judicial Commission on the Code of Ethics and the Code of Conduct for Judges. The Constitutional Court and Judicial Commission in its position as a high state institution with a strict division of tasks and authority has played a role in the creation of checks and balances mechanisms.

scholarly journals Features of informatization of the criminal process in the context of the pandemic: New challenges

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 544-554
Author(s):  
Evgenii V. Smakhtin ◽  
◽  
Irina G. Smirnova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Information Technologies ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Digital Data ◽  
Law Enforcement Agencies ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Coronavirus Infection ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article analyses the features of the application of the current criminal procedural legislation in practice in the context of the new coronavirus infection (COVID-19) after recognizing it as a disease that poses a danger to others, the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of April 08, 2020 and Reviews on certain issues of judicial practice related to the application of legislation and measures to counter the spread of the new coronavirus infection in the Russian Federation of April 21, 2020 and April 30, 2020. However, the difficulties that have arisen in law enforcement practice, also assessed in the article, indicate that criminal procedural legislation will be adjusted in the near future since the number of Decisions of the Presidium and the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation are not sufficient to eliminate ambiguities and contradictions in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. In particular, the article reflects such key problems as the emerging system of procedural decisions at the pre-trial and trial stages in a pandemic, the possibility of considering not only criminal cases but also case materials using videoconferencing systems as well as the prevailing and optimal understanding by law enforcement agencies of the category “urgency” of such consideration. The authors pay special attention to the absence in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation of the concepts introduced by paragraph “m” Art. 7 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation such as “information technologies” and “digital data turnover”. The results of the study make it possible to formulate proposals for improving criminal procedural regulation in terms of the described problems.

scholarly journals The Institutional Renewal in Settlement of Disputes of Local Election Results

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 277-292
Author(s):  
Heru Widodo
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Calculation Result ◽  
National Election ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Local Election ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Institutional Renewal ◽  
Election Results ◽  
The One ◽  
Settlement Of Disputes

Abstract. Since the first step of local election in 2015, the authority of adjudicating a dispute of local election’s result has been run by The Constitutional Court (MK) until a special judicial board before the national election held. An ideal design of the institutional renewal to adjudicate a controversy of local election’s result, could be a part of judicial environment under The Supreme Court (MA) supervision, or may becomes a new institution or replaces another institution by attaching to the authorized institution, named: Bawaslu, PT TUN or MK. Bawaslu was become the one of the institution which fulfills the requirements. Started from a legislative election on 2014, Bawaslu has an authority of resolving a dispute among the candidates of general election or between the candidates and the committee. And since the national election in the year 2017, Bawaslu has given the authorization to settle up an administrative violation, a conflict of local election and to handle a money politics through TSM. The authority of the dispute court of election results is proposed not only on the controversy over the calculation result, but also including unreachable legal phenomenon with law enforcement on criminal system and stage of election dispute, as an inseparable part.Keywords: institutional renewal, dispute result, national election.Abstrak. Sejak pemilihan serentak tahap pertama tahun 2015, wewenang mengadili sengketa hasil pemilukada dijalankan Mahkamah Konstitusi sampai dibentuk badan peradilan khusus sebelum pelaksanaan pemilihan serentak nasional. Disain pembaharuan kelembagaan yang ideal untuk mengadili sengketa hasil pemilukada serentak, dapat menjadi bagian dari lingkungan peradilan dibawah Mahkamah Agung, dapat pula menjadi lembaga baru ataupun mereposisi lembaga dengan cara melekatkan pada lembaga yang saat ini berwenang menyelesaikan sengketa pemilihan, yakni : Bawaslu, PT TUN atau MK. Bawaslu menjadi salah satu pilihan lembaga yang memenuhi persyaratan. Sejak Pemilu Legislatif 2014, Bawaslu berwenang menyelesaikan sengketa antarpeserta pemilu maupun antara peserta dengan penyelenggara, dan sejak Pemilukada Serentak 2017, bahkan diberi wewenang memutuskan pelanggaran administrasi, sengketa pemilukada sampai penanganan politik uang (money politics) secara TSM. Kewenangan peradilan sengketa hasil pemilihan diusulkan tidak hanya atas perselisihan atas hasil perhitungan, tetapi memasukkan peristiwa hukum yang tidak terjangkau dengan penegakan hukum dalam sistem pidana dan tahap sengketa pemilihan, sebagai bagian yang tidak terpisahkan. Kata kunci : pembaharuan kelembagaan, sengketa hasil, pemilukada serentak

scholarly journals Masalah Eksekutabilitas Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi oleh Mahkamah Agung

2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 171
Author(s):  
Budi Suhariyanto
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Reform ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Relationship Of

Normatively constitutional court and supreme of court has on equal position with a different authority. However, there is a relationship of authority and point of contact. Morever, potential to cause disharmony on law enforcement. For example, on implementation of the constitutional court’s decision directly followed by the decision of the supreme court but some others not. The constitutional court’s decision characteristic are final and binding general (erga omnes), at the same level with legislation (negatif legislator), undirectly binding and enforced by the supreme court. Fundamentally, judge at the supreme court and the courts below is not a mouthpiece of the law, therefore it has some authority to interpre the statute (was also againts the decision of the constitutional court) to be applied on cases they handle. Although the judges decision of the supreme court do not decide on the validity and constitutionality of the norm, but through the efforts of the discovery  or the interpretation of the law can gives an effect to the law enforcement and the establishment of a progressive and responsive legal reform.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document