lawyer-04

Novum Proven False, Can Become Basis PK Second Filing This ruling is a warning for the Administrative Court to be more careful accept Novum. The second PK has repeatedly disconnected Supreme Court.

This news has been viewed 2,134 time

Hukumonline.com-New evidence alias novelty be one that is often used ammunition disputing party to file an extraordinary legal remedy to the Supreme Court. The move was justified by the fact that the law. but if novelty proposed was counterfeit, Other issues could be. I could have victory in sight through Reconsideration (PK) shattered in an instant because there is a second PK.

That kind of story is the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court No. 154 PK / TUN / 2016 is selected to be one landmark decisions Supreme Court of 2017. The Supreme Court said the judicial review must be allowed if novelty used as evidence in courts of general jurisdiction proven false.

This matter stems from state administrative disputes (TUN) associated land between Tatang Sumarna et al as the plaintiff and the Head of the Land Office of Bandung as a defendant, and 6 the other defendants II intervention. In essence, the plaintiffs demanded that 10 certificates issued Land Agency chief Bandung canceled. Plaintiff was entitled to the land that has issued the certificate. in the lawsuit, penggugat juga meminta Kepala Pertanahan Kota Bandung menerbitkan sertifikat hak milik atas nama penggugat terhadap tanah yang menjadi obyek sengketa itu.

Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara (PTUN) Bandung –lewat putusan No.76/G/2006/PTUN.BDGmengabulkan sebagian gugatan penggugat, sertifikat yang menjadi obyek sengketa itu dibatalkan. Perkara berlanjut ke Pengadilan Tinggi Tata Usaha Negara (PTTUN) Jakarta. Lewat putusan No. 149/B/2007/PTTUN.JKT, PTTUN accept the defendant's exception / comparator, and the plaintiff / compa declared unacceptable (not declared admissible).

Plaintiff filed a cassation. Lewat putusan No. 84 K / TUN / 2008 dated 20 August 2008 The Supreme Court rejected the cassation states Tatang et al. Not wanting to give up, Tatang Sumarna et al conducted an extraordinary legal remedy, the result is the verdict numbered 35 PK / TUN / 2009 dated 15 September 2009 Tatang granted part of the demands of Sumarna et al. Assembly cancel a certificate be disputed.

Unfortunately, kemenangan Tatang Sumarna dkk itu harus pupus pada PK kedua. No Supreme Court decision. 154 PK/TUN/2016 pada intinya mengabulkan permohonan PK kedua yang diajukan Kepala Badan Pertanahan Kota Bandung; dan membatalkan putusan MA No. 35 PK/TUN/2009 dan menolak gugatan Tatang Sumarna dkk. Majelis PK kedua ini diketuai H Supandi, dengan anggota Yosran dan Irfan Fachruddin.

In consideration assemblies second PK PK argued both can be accepted because there are two decisions of the court that is legally binding to the contrary. The verdict is that the Supreme Court decision No.. 1122 K / Pid / 2015 conjunction Bandung High Court decision No.. 120/Pid/2015/PT.BDG conjunction Bandung District Court No.. 1530/Pid.B/2014/PN.BDG.

Assembly in a criminal case in District Court ruling that declared Rida Faridha Bandung Rukmiati Siti Jubaedah proven legally and convincingly guilty of committing a criminal offense to participate using false or forged letter. The second PK Assembly noted there 3 forged letter. First, Bandung District Court decision No. 11.48 date 16 September 1948. Second, No pricing Bandung District Court Chief 11/1948 conjunction 234/1954 conjunction 437/1954 dated 25 July 1971. Third, No evidence Bandung District Court 16/1967 date 10 August 1967.

The third letter was used as the basis of forged judges in legal considerations to decide upon the Supreme Court decision No.. 35 PK / TUN / 2009 dated 15 September 2009. Majelis PK kedua menggunakan hal itu sebagai dasar untuk membatalkan putusan PK kesatu dan mengabulkan PK kedua. “Mengadili: mengabulkan permohonan PK dari pemohon PK kedua Kepala Kantor Pertanahan Bandung tersebut; membatalkan putusan MA Nomor 35 PK / TUN / 2009 dated 15 September 2009,” begitu kutipan putusan PK kedua.

Pengajar Fakultas Hukum Universitas Indonesia, Chudry Sitompul, mengatakan putusan PK kedua itu layak untuk masuk dalam landmark decisions MA, meskipun sebenarnya sudah pernah ada putusan sejenis: PK kedua. According to her, pelajaran penting yang patut dicatat dari putusan PK kedua itu antara lain pengadilan TUN harus lebih hati-hati menerima dan menilai suatu novelty, jangan sampai kecolongan menerima bukti palsu. Menurutnya pemeriksaan yang dilakukan selama ini sekadar formil bukan materil. Perlu diingat, novelty which meant it was evidence that have not been used. According Chudry, doctrine or opinion on the use of novelty they vary. In reality novelty is long newly discovered evidence when the case is already legally binding.

source : Hukum Online

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *