TELAAH YURIDIS TERHADAP
PERMOHONAN PENGAJUAN PENINJAUAN KEMBALI DALAM PROSES
KETENTUAN PASAL 263 KUHAP TENTANG PERKARA PIDANA
Total View This Week0
Total View This Week0
Institusion
Universitas Atma Jaya Yogyakarta
Author
Resirwawan, Melania Rosarin
Subject
Peradilan dan Penyelesaian Sengketa Hukum
Datestamp
2015-10-29 12:54:43
Abstract :
Judical review form a legal remedi of extraordinary about verdict have legal force. On the Article 263 Clause (1) KUHAP very explicit regulated that who subject could application submission of judical review is a prisoner or legal heir, because purpose of judical review is heal prisoner has right, at the time already take because of country is not legal means verdict has before. This legal reseach has purpose to know consistency of the Article 263 KUHAP, nowhere on the practice as example case of Muchtar Pakpahan and Pollycarpus Budihari Priyanto when Public Prosecutor has application submission of judical review and accept by Supreme Court. This is of course has againts Article 263 Clause (1) KUHAP has characteristic limitative, bacause on the Article 263 Clause (1) KUHAP very explicit regulated who application submission of judical review only prisoner or legal heir. Infraction of the Article 263 Clause (1) KUHAP must be give consequence of law. The method of this legal research used normative research which focussed on norms and supported by secondary data as main data. Source of data consisted of primary legal material and secondary legal material. The result of this legal research showed implemantation of Article 263 KUHAP is consistency because who application submission of judical review must a prisoner or legal heir, but on the example cased as Muchtar Pakpahan and Pollycarpus Budihari Priyanto application submission of judical review by Public Prosecutor and accept by Supreme Court. Besides of that consequence of law never give about infraction of the Article 263 KUHAP which did by Public Prosecutor and Supreme Court. Because of that, implementation on Article 263 KUHAP must to be consistency and in order to not occur infraction Article 263 KUHAP therefore give a consequence of law.
Judical review form a legal remedi of extraordinary about verdict have legal force. On the Article 263 Clause (1) KUHAP very explicit regulated that who subject could application submission of judical review is a prisoner or legal heir, because purpose of judical review is heal prisoner has right, at the time already take because of country is not legal means verdict has before. This legal reseach has purpose to know consistency of the Article 263 KUHAP, nowhere on the practice as example case of Muchtar Pakpahan and Pollycarpus Budihari Priyanto when Public Prosecutor has application submission of judical review and accept by Supreme Court. This is of course has againts Article 263 Clause (1) KUHAP has characteristic limitative, bacause on the Article 263 Clause (1) KUHAP very explicit regulated who application submission of judical review only prisoner or legal heir. Infraction of the Article 263 Clause (1) KUHAP must be give consequence of law. The method of this legal research used normative research which focussed on norms and supported by secondary data as main data. Source of data consisted of primary legal material and secondary legal material. The result of this legal research showed implemantation of Article 263 KUHAP is consistency because who application submission of judical review must a prisoner or legal heir, but on the example cased as Muchtar Pakpahan and Pollycarpus Budihari Priyanto application submission of judical review by Public Prosecutor and accept by Supreme Court. Besides of that consequence of law never give about infraction of the Article 263 KUHAP which did by Public Prosecutor and Supreme Court. Because of that, implementation on Article 263 KUHAP must to be consistency and in order to not occur infraction Article 263 KUHAP therefore give a consequence of law.
Download
book
BibTex
Latex, Jabref
cloud_download
Original Resource
url resource Institution
