Sidang Perkara Nomor 77/PUU-XXII/2024. Rabu, 4 Juni 2025.

Summary

The transcript details a court session for case number 77 PU3, involving Bahrul Ilmi Yakub and Iwan Kurniawan as petitioners. The hearing addresses the revision of their request, focusing on the examination of legal norms in various judicial contexts. The petitioners propose changes in the interpretation of phrases in specific laws to resolve inconsistencies in court decisions. They seek constitutional interpretation by the Constitutional Court regarding legal jurisdiction, particularly related to land certificates. The session concludes with the acknowledgment of document submissions and a promise to inform the petitioners of further proceedings.

Takeaways

• 😀 The court session for case number 77 PU3, Roman 2025 was officially opened and is accessible to the public.
• 😀 The petitioners, Bahrul Ilmi Yakub and Iwan Kurniawan, introduced themselves as present during the proceedings.
• 😀 The main agenda of the hearing was the introduction and discussion of the amendments made to the petition.
• 😀 The petitioners revised their petition to challenge not the articles, but the norms (phrases) related to the jurisdiction of the courts in the context of administrative and civil cases.
• 😀 One significant change was altering the phrasing of judicial authority from 'article' to 'norm' and clarifying the legal standing arguments.
• 😀 The petitioners argued that the phrases related to judicial authority were inconsistent, leading to legal uncertainty and disparities in judicial decisions.
• 😀 The issue of disparities was highlighted by inconsistent rulings regarding which court had jurisdiction over land certificate disputes.
• 😀 The petitioners requested a constitutional interpretation of these phrases to ensure legal clarity and uniformity in judicial decisions.
• 😀 A further change was introduced regarding the regulation of exceptions in case laws, which were found to lack clear limits on when exceptions should be decided.
• 😀 The petitioners requested that exceptions be limited to administrative courts and higher administrative courts, referencing the applicable rules in Indonesian procedural law.
• 😀 The petitioners submitted their petition for review, including evidence and an updated list of supporting documents (P1 to P30), with the last two documents yet to be received by the court.
• 😀 The session concluded with a formal declaration that the case would be further reviewed by the Constitutional Court's panel to determine if it will proceed or be resolved without further hearings.

Q & A

What is the main topic of the court session described in the transcript?

The court session concerns the review of a legal petition, specifically examining the constitutionality of certain legal provisions and their implications, including the interpretation of phrases in laws related to administrative courts and jurisdiction.

Who are the main individuals present in the session?

The main individuals present in the session are Bahrul Ilmi Yakub, representing the petitioners, and Iwan Kurniawan, his colleague. They are addressing the court in the presence of the constitutional judges.

What was the purpose of the 'perbaikan permohonan' or 'petition correction' discussed?

The purpose of the petition correction was to amend the legal grounds for the petition, specifically changing the focus from testing articles to testing legal phrases, such as 'pengadilan bertugas dan berwenang' (court duty and authority) in the relevant laws.

What was the key legal issue raised by the petitioners in their correction?

The key issue raised was the lack of legal certainty caused by the inconsistency between the judicial authority granted to administrative courts and general courts, especially in relation to land certificate disputes.

What is the significance of the legal phrase 'pengadilan bertugas dan berwenang' in this case?

The petitioners argue that the phrase 'pengadilan bertugas dan berwenang' in both administrative and general court laws is problematic because it leads to inconsistent legal rulings, causing uncertainty and disparity in judgments, particularly in cases concerning land certificates.

How does the petitioners' request relate to the Indonesian Constitution?

The petitioners request that the Constitutional Court interprets the phrase 'pengadilan bertugas dan berwenang' in a manner that aligns with the Constitution, ensuring legal certainty and preventing conflicting decisions in cases involving land certificates and administrative disputes.

What changes did the petitioners make to their legal standing argument?

The petitioners revised their legal standing argument to reflect the change in their focus from testing specific articles to challenging legal phrases, adjusting their reasoning to better align with their primary concern of legal uncertainty.

What does the petitioners' change in focus from testing articles to testing phrases imply?

The change implies that the petitioners are seeking a more nuanced legal interpretation of specific phrases within laws, rather than challenging entire articles. This shift reflects a focus on resolving the ambiguity in the judicial authority assigned to different courts.

What was the role of the Constitutional Court in this session?

The Constitutional Court's role in this session was to review the petitioners' arguments and proposed amendments, evaluate the evidence presented, and ultimately decide whether to accept the petition or proceed with further examination.

What did the court decide regarding the petitioner's submitted evidence?

The court accepted evidence P1 to P30, but noted that two pieces of evidence (P31 and P32) had not been received. The petitioners were asked to submit the soft copies of these missing pieces, which would be processed in the next steps.