| Summary: | The judge in making a decision, ideally to meet the elements of legal certainty,
justice, and expediency. However, sometimes there are still many decisions of judges
who do not meet one of these elements, thus causing inconsistency and contradictory
between one decision with each other. One of this is Constitutional Court Decision
Number 34/PUU-XI/2013 which cancel Subsection 268 (3) Criminal Code Act
related reconsideration.
This research take a problem about \"What are the juridical implications on
Constitutional Court Decision Number 34/PUU-XI/2013 against the fulfillment of
principle of legal certainty and justice? \"
This research uses normative legal research, with legal materials collection
techniques in the form of documentation and library research from books, journals,
legislations, scientific creations, papers, althought legal theory relating to the
problem. The method used is the legislations approach and cases approach. And then
the legal research material was analyzed by descriptive qualitative analysis.
In conclusion, the Constitutional Court Decision Number 34/PUU-XI/2013 has
implications for the legal uncertainty and injustice. Legal uncertainty from that
decision because due consideration in the decision inconsistencies and contradictory
with decision number 16/PUU-VIII/2010, giving rise to doubt and uncertainty. The
other way, injustice of that decision because the petition is granted by the
Constitutional Court related to �Reconsideration� only on criminal cases, while the
�Reconsideration� on civil cases and state administrative cases limited to only one
time, which has restricted the rights of other citizens to achieve justice in civil cases
and state administrative cases
|
|---|