ANALISIS YURIDIS TERHADAP ALASAN PENEMUAN NOVUM PALSU SEBAGAI DASAR PENINJAUAN KEMBALI KEDUA DALAM PERKARA PERDATA

  • Ulil Manaqib Trenggalek
Keywords: Fake Novum, Review of the two civil cases, Supreme Court

Abstract

This article discusses the juridical analysis of the reasons for the discovery of a fake novum as the basis of a second review in a civil case. This study aims to answer the question of how are the reasons for the discovery of a fake novum as the basis for a second review in a civil case? and how are the legal analysis of a reason for the discovery of a fake novum as a the basis for a second review in a civil case. The reason for receiving the second review in the civil case is based on the discovery of a novum which was declared false by the Criminal Judge of the Bandung District Court that has inkracht, is a reason that falls within the criteria of Article 67 letter (a) which reads: “If the decision is based on a lie or a ruse the opposing party that is known after the case has been decided or based on evidence which is later declared to be false by the criminal judge”, is not classified as a reason for finding novum or the reason there are two conflicting judicial decisions. Secondly, the second review in the pedata and criminal case is only limited to the reason that there are two Judicial Decisions that are interrelated with one another (SEMA Number 10 Year 2009), so in addition to these reasons, the Supreme Court has never issued a policy related to the second mechanism Judicial Review, including on the grounds that a novum has been legally and convincingly found false by a public court.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Harlen Sinaga, Hukum Acara Perdata dengan Pemahaman Hukum Materiil (Jakarta: Erlangga, 2015).

M. Yahya Harahap, Kekuasaan Mahkamah Agung Pemeriksaan Kasasi dan Peninjauan Kembali Perkara Perdata (Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2008).

M. Yahya Harahap, Ruang Lingkup Permasalahan Eksekusi Bidang Perdata (Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2005), Edisi Kedua, Cetakan Pertama

Mukti Arto, Praktek Perkara Perdata pada Pengadilan Agama. (Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar, 1996), cet. IV.

Mukti Arto, Upaya Hukum Kasasi dan Peninjauan Kembali Perkara Perdata Agama, Ekonomi Syariah dan Jinayah. (Depok: Prenadamedia Group, 2018).

Ramlan Subekti, Hukum Acara Perdata. (Bandung: Bina Cipta, 1989).

Sudikno Mertokusumo, Hukum Acara Perdata Indonesia. (Yogyakarta: Liberty, 2009), Edisi VIII, Cetakan I.

Sunarto. Peran Aktif Hakim dalam Perkara Perdata. Jakarta: (Prenadamedia Group, 2015), Cet. II.

Sutantio, Ny. Retnowulan dan Oeripkartawinata, Iskandar, Hukum Acara Perdata dalam Teori dan Praktek. (Bandung: Mandar Maju, 1997), cet. VIII.

Swantoro, Herri. Harmonisasi Keadilan dan Kepastian dalam Peninjauan Kembali. Depok: Prenadamedia Group, 2017.

Taufik, Moh.Pokok-Pokok Hukum Acara Perdata. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta, 2009.

Wirjono Prodjodikoro. Hukum Acara Perdata di Indonesia. Bandung, Sumur, 1982.

Tania Sourdin dan Naomi Burstyner, 'Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied', dalam Journal of Monash University, 2013.

UU Nomor 3 Tahun 2009 Tentang Perubahan Kedua Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 14 tahun 1985 Tentang Mahkamah Agung, (Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2009 Nomor 3, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 4958).

Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 34/PUU-XI/2013.

Putusan Mahkakamah Agung Nomor 154 PK/TUN/2016.

Surat Edaran Mahkamah Agung Nomor 10 Tahun 2009 Tentang Pengajuan Permohonan Peninjauan Kembali (Nomor Surat: 10/Bua.6/Hs/SP/VI/2009).

Surat Edaran Mahakamah Agung Nomor 7 Tahun 2014 Tentang Pengajuan Permohonan Peninjauan Kembali Dalam Perkara Pidana (Nomor Surat: 165/Bua.6/Hs/SP/XII/2014)

Kumpulan Surat Edaran Mahkamah Agung, diakses dari: http://bawas.mahkamahagung.go.id/portal/surat-edaran-mahkamah-agung, pada tanggal 26 Juni 2019, Jam 04.23

Statistik Data Perkara Mahkamah Agung diakses dari: http://leip.or.id/statistik-data-perkaramahkamah-agung, pada tanggal 01 April 2019, pukul 07:28 WIB.

Published
2019-09-04
How to Cite
Manaqib, U. (2019). ANALISIS YURIDIS TERHADAP ALASAN PENEMUAN NOVUM PALSU SEBAGAI DASAR PENINJAUAN KEMBALI KEDUA DALAM PERKARA PERDATA. Al-Hukama’, 9(01), 130-148. https://doi.org/10.15642/alhukama.2019.9.01.130-148
Section
Articles