'Novum' in Indonesian Criminal Justice: Problems and Legal Reform

Abstract

This study examines the rationale for utilizing court decisions as a basis for requesting a case review (PK) in criminal cases in Indonesia. This report also delineates the future regulation of legal remedies for PK in criminal cases in Indonesia. This research presents a normative legal analysis comparing PK provisions in France. The study’s findings suggest that District Court Decisions may serve as novum in PK petitions in Indonesia due to the ambiguous definition of novum in Article 263(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, resulting in multiple interpretations regarding the grounds for filing a PK, thereby enabling judges to incorporate one of these expert interpretations in their rulings. Secondly, the principle of ius curia novit facilitates judges in adopting one of these expert interpretations, permitting the basis for PK through a prior first-instance court judgment. Upon analyzing the rationale for permitting the submission of PK as a District Court Decision, the author juxtaposes this with French Criminal Procedure Law and concludes that the grounds for filing PK should be distinctly and unequivocally delineated in the KUHAP. Both jurisdictions explicitly stipulate in their criminal procedure statutes that an appeal must be predicated on new facts and evidence that, if introduced during the prior trial, could potentially mitigate or nullify the public prosecutor’s charges..