PENINJAUAN KEMBALI KEDUA DALAM PERKARA PIDANA BERDASARKAN SURAT EDARAN MAHKAMAH AGUNG NOMOR 7 TAHUN 2014

The right of review is the right of the perpetrator, in contrast to ordinary legal remedies whose application is enshrined in Article 268 paragraph (3) of the Criminal Code. However, in SEMA Number 7 of 2014, a review can be submitted on the grounds that there is a conflict between the decisions. Through Decision 467 Pk/Pid.Sus/2021, the panel of judges decided that the application was unacceptable. From the description above, the author intends to analyze two main issues to be examined, namely whether the decision is in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code, and whether the reason for the decision is not acceptable to the application. In this paper, the author conducts a descriptive analysis method. Based on the discussion presented in this paper, it is concluded that the decision is not in line with Article 79 of Law Number 14 of 1985 concerning the Supreme Court, using the reason that there is no contradiction submitted as evidences as required in SEMA Number 7 of 2014

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Reformasi Hukum Trisakti
Published
2024-08-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.25105/refor.v6i3.21257
Primary Topic
Legal Studies and Policies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

PENINJAUAN KEMBALI KEDUA DALAM PERKARA PIDANA BERDASARKAN SURAT EDARAN MAHKAMAH AGUNG NOMOR 7 TAHUN 2014

Julián Daniel, Setiyono Setiyono
Reformasi Hukum Trisakti
Legal Studies and Policies
article

PENINJAUAN KEMBALI KEDUA DALAM PERKARA PIDANA BERDASARKAN SURAT EDARAN MAHKAMAH AGUNG NOMOR 7 TAHUN 2014

Julián Daniel, Setiyono Setiyono
article en

Abstract

The right of review is the right of the perpetrator, in contrast to ordinary legal remedies whose application is enshrined in Article 268 paragraph (3) of the Criminal Code. However, in SEMA Number 7 of 2014, a review can be submitted on the grounds that there is a conflict between the decisions. Through Decision 467 Pk/Pid.Sus/2021, the panel of judges decided that the application was unacceptable. From the description above, the author intends to analyze two main issues to be examined, namely whether the decision is in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code, and whether the reason for the decision is not acceptable to the application. In this paper, the author conducts a descriptive analysis method. Based on the discussion presented in this paper, it is concluded that the decision is not in line with Article 79 of Law Number 14 of 1985 concerning the Supreme Court, using the reason that there is no contradiction submitted as evidences as required in SEMA Number 7 of 2014

Reformasi Hukum TrisaktiVol. 6(3)
Universitas Trisakti (ID)
Openalex Percentile: Top 72%
Legal Studies and Policies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

PENINJAUAN KEMBALI KEDUA DALAM PERKARA PIDANA BERDASARKAN SURAT EDARAN MAHKAMAH AGUNG NOMOR 7 TAHUN 2014 — Julián Daniel, Setiyono Setiyono · Reformasi Hukum Trisakti (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS