Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.23
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal International Journal of Educational Review, Law And Social Sciences (IJERLAS)
Dipa Rivaldi
Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia
Religion Humanities Environmental Science Languange, Linguistic, Communication & Media Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Library & Information Science Social Sciences Other

Published : 1 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 1 Documents
Search

 1 
Reformulation of The Administrative Examination Regulation of Applications for Review (Peninjauan Kembali) in Criminal Cases: A Comparative Study of Indonesia, The Netherlands and France Dipa Rivaldi; Muktiono
International Journal of Educational Review, Law And Social Sciences (IJERLAS) Vol. 6 No. 4 (2026): on Progress
Publisher : CV. RADJA PUBLIKA

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.54443/ijerlas.v6i4.5636

Abstract

The regulation of the administrative examination of applications for extraordinary legal remedy of review (peninjauan kembali, PK) in Indonesian criminal procedure contains fundamental juridical problems. Although PK is regulated in Articles 263–269 of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP 1981) as amended by KUHAP 2025, significant procedural ambiguity persists, particularly at the examination stage before the district court functioning as the forwarding court. This research aims to analyze the juridical problems in the regulation of PK under KUHAP regarding the procedure for examining PK applications, to compare the administrative examination regulation between Indonesia, the Netherlands, and France, and to formulate a reformulation model adoptable from those jurisdictions. This study employs a normative legal method with a prescriptive and applied character, utilizing the statute approach, conceptual approach, and comparative approach. Legal materials consist of primary, secondary, and non-legal materials analyzed prescriptively. The findings reveal that the procedural obscurity of Article 265 KUHAP, the ambiguity of the concept of novum, and the disharmony between statutory provisions and internal Supreme Court regulations generate legal uncertainty and disparities in application. The Dutch Wetboek van Strafvordering (Articles 457–482i) and the French Code de procédure pénale (Articles 622–627) provide more structured, transparent, and accountable mechanisms. This article proposes a reformulation model encompassing clarification of novum criteria, detailed examination procedures, adoption of best practices from both countries, and harmonization of the regulatory hierarchy.
Co-Authors Muktiono