Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
In the practice of criminal justice in Indonesia, judicial review efforts are an interesting problem to study because, in the development phase, there is a tug-of-war of interests between the defendant or his heirs and the public prosecutor. The presence of Constitutional Court Decision Number 20/PUU-XXI/2023 ends the debate and legal uncertainty for justice seekers. In this research, the author used a normative juridical approach. The approaches used were the Law approach, Case Approach, and Conceptual Approach. There are several problem formulations in this research: 1) what is the rationale for the decision of the Constitutional Court Number 20/PUU-XXI/2023?; 2) What are the arrangements for judicial review after the Constitutional Court decision Number 20/PUU-XXI/2023. Research Results of problem formulation number 1). According to the Court's consideration, requests for judicial review in criminal cases are the right of the defendant and his heirs, and the addition of the authority of the prosecutor to carry out judicial review efforts does not provide legal certainty and justice. Previously, the court in 2016 decided on a case regarding judicial review efforts, in which the court considered that the essence of a judicial review is the rights of the defendant and his heirs. 2) After the Constitutional Court Decision Number 20/PUU-XXI/2023, the public prosecutor cannot submit a judicial review effort in a criminal case; legally, when the prosecutor makes a judicial review effort in a criminal case, it is invalid/abash. With the decision of the Constitutional Court number 20/PUU-XXI/2023, it is reaffirmed that only the defendant and his heirs can submit a judicial review effort.
Yudistira et al. (Thu,) studied this question.