T

he Supreme Court (MA) said on Friday that the recent Constitutional Court (MK) ruling that a convict can now file a case review an unlimited number of times would only create legal uncertainty and could easily be abused by convicted criminals.

The Constitutional Court announced on Thursday that it had annulled an article in the Criminal Law Procedures Code (KUHAP) that limited the amount of times a conviction could be challenged to one time only.

The court argued that the limit breached human rights and was against the Constitution.

The ruling granted the judicial review request filed by former Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) chairman Antasari Azhar, who was convicted of murder and had attempted to file a second case review to overturn his conviction.

The ruling, which was made last year when the Constitutional Court was led by disgraced former chief justice Akil Mochtar, caused confusion and criticism.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Hatta Ali said he was surprised by the ruling and questioned the logic behind it. '€œWhere is the rights violation? Where is the legal uncertainty [caused by limiting the number of case review requests]? In fact, allowing [convicts] to file case reviews repeatedly distances us from legal certainty,'€ he said in Batam as quoted by Antara.

Supreme Court spokesman Ridwan Mansyur said it respected the Constitutional Court'€™s ruling but made it clear that there were fears that it would be a burden for the Supreme Court, as more convicts would file case reviews, at a time when the court was trying to reduce the number of cases it handled.

'€œThose involved in corruption and drug cases are people with money; it'€™s easy for them to file for case reviews,'€ he said. '€œThey may [just] be buying time.'€

The Supreme Court also highlighted that people were often not informed about the case review mechanism, saying that many case reviews were rejected or turned down because of a lack of impelling new evidence.

Only the convicts and their heirs can lodge a case review '€” an extraordinary legal process outside the regular appeal stage in the Indonesian justice system '€” and only if they can present new evidence. The final stage is the cassation, when the verdict is final and binding.

In its consideration, the Constitutional Court argued that a single case-review regulation contravened the Constitution, which assured justice and the protection of human rights, saying that efforts to get legal certainty stopped at the cassation stage, while efforts to get justice through a case review should not be limited.

Deputy Law and Human Rights Minister Denny Indrayana called for a tightening of the new case review mechanism. '€œThere still must be restrictions that prevent the case review becoming a loophole, which would eventually create legal uncertainty,'€ Denny said.

For example, he said, when the initial examination found no clear new evidence, the case review should be stopped.

University of Indonesia (UI) criminal law expert Akhiar Salmi was of the same opinion, saying the ruling was supposed to weigh both legal certainty and justice.

'€œAllowing repeated case reviews is good in terms of principles of justice; however, we must also prevent it from being used as a tool by those convicts trying to fool around and who are not serious about seeking a case review,'€ he said. '€œIt would be best to impose some kind of penalty on those who fail to present significant new evidence the second time round.'€