By Timur Abimanyu, SH.

MH

The Washington Post

Application for Judicial Review must exist Novum

or new evidence in Filing The Application for
Judicial Review

Filing for Judicial Review in a grace period of 180 days after the determination or decision
of the court have the force of permanent or since in ketemukan evidence of Deceit or new
evidence, and if the reason the applicant review of Return based on new evidence (Novum)
The new evidence was stated under Oath and in sanction by the competent authority (Article
69 of Law No. 14 of 1985, the which has been changed by Act no. 5 of 2004) as amended by
the laws of the new Supreme Court.

Examination of Judicial Review Regarding Court Decision Has Legal Power Obtaining
Fixed. Article 67 of Law No.14 of 1985 as amended Act No. 5 of 2004 (amended by the
new Supreme Court) on the Supreme Court stated as follows:
"Application for review of decision of civil cases have obtained permanent legal That May
be Brought force only on the basis of the Following Reasons:
a. if the decision is based on a lie or deception is known opponent after his case is
disconnected or is based on the evidence and then by the criminal judge declared a fake;
b. if after the case was cut, found the letters to determine the which evidence is examined at
the time the case Could not be found;
c. if it has been granted a matter That Is not required or More Than the required;
d. if the something part of the claim has not been decided upon without consideration Their
causes;
e. Between the parties if Same Same Concerning the matter, on an equal basis by the court
at the Same Same level or has given decisions the which contradict one another;
f. in a decision if there is an oversight That the Judge or a real mistake. "

Furthermore, Article 69 of Law No.14 of 1985 as amended Act No. 5 of 2004 Concerning
the Supreme Court stated:
"The grace period for judicial review is based on Reasons as intended in Article 67 is 180
(One Hundred and eighty) days to:
a. Called the letter a from the known to lie or deception or from the decision of Justice
criminal obtained permanent legal force, and has been Notified to the parties litigant;
b. mentioned in point b since found the letters of evidence, that day and the date of the
discovery Should Be stated under Oath and approved by authorized Officials;
c. Called the letter c, d, and f from the decision to obtain permanent legal force and has been
Notified to the parties litigant;
d. the which is the letter e, since since the last decision and the contrary was obtained
permanent legal force and have been Notified to the parties. "

Referring to the description and the questions raised above, it is clear That the question was
related to the provision in Article 67 letter b jo. Article 69 letter b of Law No.14 of 1985 as
amended by Law no. 5 of 2004 Concerning the Supreme Court. According to M. Harahap
Yahya in his book titled "The power of the Supreme Court; Examination of Cassation and
Judicial Review Civil Case", there are 4 (four) parts That cans be described relating to
Article 67 letter b jo. Article 69 letter b above, namely:
1. Application of the reason an application for review (PK) is limited only to the form letter
Evidence Tool.
2. Letter Evidence Tool, the which meet the request for reconsideration reason (PK), must be
decisive.
3. Day and date the letter was evidence found, must be declared under the authorized
Officials endorsed sumpahdan.
4. Evidence the letter Had there been prior to the proceedings.

On section 3 above, then on the day and date found evidence That letter, PK applicant must
declare under Oath That:
• sworn statement was made in writing to Explain That on the day and date have found
evidence in this case a letter or certificate of sale and the Deed of Property Rights by
calling the office or place Nowhere items of evidence, the letter was found.
• subsequent sworn statement was approved by the competent authority.
Both these requirements are imperative and cumulative. That is, if the discovery of the letter
is not written in the form of a statement under Oath, and sworn statement was not authorized
by the competent authority, then the Evidence That the letter does not qualify as a reason for
judicial review. Meanwhile, just sworn statement by the applicant PK without legalized by
the competent authority Also leads to evidence the letter was not valid as a reason for
judicial review.

Put simply, a statement under Oath cans be directly Executed before competent authority,
and approval by Officials at the Same letter in place of making Oath statement.
As to the definition of "competent authority" in Article 69 item b is not given an
explanation. Therefore, no explanation is given, then there is no restriction on the
"competent authority" in making the endorsement of evidence in the letter. However, in
general, if a letter will of some to perform certain novumberkaitan closely with Officials, the
statement of Oath and approval done before and by the official.

Associated with this case, if the evidence submitted the letter as Novum is a deed of sale,
then the statement of Oath and approval cans be done in the presence and by deed.
Meanwhile, if the evidence submitted the letter as Novum is a form of property right
certificate, then the statement of Oath and approval cans be done in the presence and by
Officials of the National Land Agency (BPN). By Dr. Luhut M.P. Pangaribuan, S.H., LL.M.
Sumber: Hukumonline
The analysis Novum is:
1. That 'there is new evidence proves the existence of fraud against the Evidence That has
been taken into consideration by the judge in first instance, appeal and cassation., And
New Evidence That proves the existence of fraud from the Opposition and was never
Used at trial, Could it be a reason to file a Judicial Review Back ..
2. The existence of trickery from The Opposite side on the basis of the evidence to Explain
the occurrence of deception effort by the opponent and is the element of criminal offenses
punishable by several cans That imprisonment.
3. The existence of waiver (buying and selling) done with no legitimate legal foundations, to
be done notwithstanding the provisions of laws and Regulations perundanga.
4. The intervention of a third party and Such third-party intervention to support all the
requests for judicial review of evidence, that the Evidence That the evidence, the
opponent is invalid and contrary to the statutory provisions.
Thus Novum data is obtained Revealed That Is not from anywhere and to test the truth of it
is done with a re-examination. Novum That is something already exists Pls place the events
stores.

data sources :
http://www.hukumonline.com
http://www.yahoo.com
http://www.google.com
http://www.infomediailmiah.blogspot.com.