¹Rahmadianto Andra,² Taufiqurrohman Syahuri

¹Postgraduate student of Master of Law UPN “Veteran” Jakarta.

²Lecturer of Postgraduate Masters in Law at UPN “Veteran” Jakarta.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.47191/ijsshr/v4-i6-15

Google Scholar Download Pdf
ABSTRACT

The background of this paper is inspired and triggered to observe and study the legal uncertainty between the public prosecutor and the convict/his heirs regarding the authority to submit a PK Application as regulated in Article 263 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The article states "the right of the public prosecutor" to apply for a PK application. However, what is expected by the Petitioner's wife is that Article 263 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code can be interpreted in this way, "PK applications can only be filed by the convicted person or their heirs". This condition was exacerbated by the issuance of the Constitutional Court decision Number 33/PUU-XIV/ 2016 regarding "the right of the public prosecutor to file a PK application in a criminal case". This study aims to determine the application of extraordinary legal remedies by the public prosecutor and the implications of implementing these extraordinary remedies. The research method used is normative legal research. The results showed the application of extraordinary PK legal remedies for the public prosecutor after the Constitutional Court decision Number 33/PUU-XIV/2016, had direct implications for the Petitioner and his family. This implication is detrimental to the Petitioners' constitutional rights based on Article 28G of the 1945 Constitution because the protection of personal, family, honor and dignity has clearly been lost. It is better if the Constitutional Court reaffirms the legal principles in the article through constitutional interpretation which is an integral part that is not separate from the article in question and is able to provide fair legal certainty.

KEYWORDS:

Extraordinary Legal Remedies for Reconsideration, Public Prosecutor, law.

REFERENCES:

Books:
1) Asikin, Zainal, 2015, Hukum Acara Perdata di Indonesia, Jakarta: Prenadamedia.

2) Dahlan Thaib, dkk., 2019, Teori dan Hukum Konstitusi, Depok: Rajawali Pers.

3) Bagijo, Himawan Estu, 2014, Negara Hukum & Mahkamah Konstitusi: Perwujudan Negara Hukum yang Demokratis melalui Wewenang Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam Pengujian Undang-Undang, Yogyakarta: Laksbang Grafika.

4) Gultom, M Binsar, 2020, Pandangan Kritis Seorang Hakim, Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama.

5) Harahap, M. Yahya, 2000, Upaya Hukum Luar Biasa: Pembahasan Permasalahan dan Penerapan KUHAP (Pemeriksaan Sidang Pengadilan, Banding, Kasasi, dan Peninjauan Kembali), Jakarta: Sinar Grafika.

6) M. Hadjon, Philipus, 2007, Perlindungan Hukum bagi Rakyat di Indonesia, Surabaya: Bina Ilmu.

7) Mertokusumo, S., & Pitlo. A, 2013, Bab-bab tentang Penemuan Hukum, Bandung: Citra Aditya.

8) P. Soeparman, 2009, Pengaturan hak mengajukan upaya hukum Peninjauan Kembali dalam perkara pidana bagi korban kejahatan, Bandung: Refika Aditama.

9) Sidharta, Arief, 2009, Refleksi tentang Struktur Ilmu Hukum, cetakan ketiga, Bandung: Mandar Maju.

10) Syahuri, Taufiqurrohman, 2011, Tafsir Konstitusi Berbagai Aspek Hukum, Jakarta: Kencana.

Journals:
1) Ramiyanto, 2016, Makna “Ahli Waris” Sebagai Subjek Pengajuan Peninjauan Kembali (Kajian Putusan Nomor 97 PK/Pid/Sus/2012), Jurnal Yudisial Vol.9 No.1 April.

Legislation:
1) Undang – Undang Dasar 1945.

2) Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK) Nomor 33/PUU-XIV/2016.

3) Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Nomor 156/Pid.B/2000/Jak.Sel.

4) Putusan Nomor 1688 K/Pid/2000.

5) KUHAP.

VOlUME 04 ISSUE 06 JUNE 2021