<![CDATA[Abstract Background: Reform of Indonesia’s Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) has reopened a fundamental debate concerning the structure and limitation of criminal case review (Peninjauan Kembali/PK) as an extraordinary legal remedy. The constitutional tension between the Constitutional Court’s decision permitting multiple PK submissions and the Supreme Court’s administrative limitation reflects a deeper conflict between substantive justice and procedural finality. Purpose: This study aims to construct a theoretical framework for evaluating the reformulation of PK in the KUHAP, focusing on constitutional balancing, wrongful conviction theory, and substantive justice. Methods: This research employs a normative juridical method, integrating statute approach, and conceptual analysis. Primary materials include statutory provisions, constitutional decisions, and draft legislation. Secondary materials consist of relevant theories and scientific research results. Results: Pengaturan Peninjauan Kembali (PK) lebih dari satu kali dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2025 tentang KUHAP pada dasarnya mencerminkan upaya harmonisasi antara perlindungan hak asasi manusia dan asas litis finiri oportet. Ketentuan ini membuka ruang koreksi terhadap kemungkinan wrongful conviction melalui ditemukannya novum atau keadaan luar biasa, sehingga memperkuat orientasi pada keadilan substantif tanpa sepenuhnya mengabaikan prinsip finalitas perkara. Implication: The reform signals a paradigmatic shift toward calibrated constitutionalism. Nonetheless, further normative refinement is required to ensure that procedural limits do not transform into structural barriers against justice. Originality: This article contributes a constitutional-theoretical reconstruction of judicial review reform by integrating substantive justice theory, responsive law, and wrongful conviction scholarship into Indonesia’s criminal procedural discourse.]]>
