Appeals in Criminal Cases and Legal Certainty Following the Enactment of the 2025 Criminal Procedure Code
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33506/jlj.v4i3.4858Keywords:
Judicial Review, Legal Certainty, Criminal Procedure Code, Extraordinary Legal Remedy, Criminal JusticeAbstract
This study aims to analyze the mechanism of judicial review in criminal cases and the implications of changes to its regulations on legal certainty following the enactment of Law No. 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code. The study uses a normative legal methodology, employing a statutory approach, a conceptual approach, and a case-based approach. Primary legal sources include the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code, regulations concerning the judiciary and the Supreme Court, as well as Constitutional Court decisions related to retrials. Secondary legal sources, such as books, scholarly journals, and legal literature, were used to support the analysis. The novelty of this research lies in the analysis of the transition in the regulation of case review from the old Criminal Procedure Code to the 2025 Criminal Procedure Code from the perspective of legal certainty, particularly regarding the grounds for case review and the possibility of filing a case review more than once. The results of the study indicate that the amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code have fundamental implications for the mechanism of judicial review. The 2025 Criminal Procedure Code not only updates the procedures for judicial review but also establishes new frameworks for the grounds for filing a request, including provisions regarding new circumstances or evidence as the basis for judicial review and the possibility of filing a second request for judicial review. These changes expand the mechanisms for correcting final and binding judgments, but at the same time require clear normative and procedural limits so that the finality of judgments does not lose its meaning. The study concludes that legal certainty in the judicial review mechanism must be established through a balance between the need to correct erroneous judgments and the principle of the finality of court decisions.
References
Afriani Gulo and Arista Candra Irawati, “Analisis Yuridis Pencabutan Kewenangan Jaksa Penuntut Umum Atas Peninjauan Kembali Terhadap Putusan Bebas (Putusan MK Nomor 20/PUU-XXI/2023),” PESHUM: Jurnal Pendidikan, Sosial dan Humaniora 4, no. 3 (2025).
Ananda Nasirah, Hadi Tuasikal, and A. Sakti R.S. Rakia, “The Criminal Pre-Trial System from a Human Rights Perspective,” Journal of Law Justice 3, no. 2 (2025): 164–175, https://doi.org/10.33506/jlj.v3i2.4507
Dimas Bayu Erlangga, “Legal Compliance and Enforcement Against Gambling Crimes in Sorong City,” Journal of Law Justice 3, no. 2 (2025): 115–126, https://doi.org/10.33506/jlj.v3i2.3765
I Gusti Ayu Stefani Ratna Maharani, “Melawan Peninjauan Kembali (PK) dengan Mengajukan Peninjauan Kembali (PK): Analisis Yuridis terhadap Kepastian Hukum dan Keadilan,” Kertha Wicaksana 20, no. 2 (2026): 100–105.
Irwan Sapta Putra, “Analisis Yuridis Hapusnya Kewenangan Jaksa Terhadap Permohonan Peninjauan Kembali (PK) Atas Putusan Bebas/Lepas Dari Segala Tuntutan Dalam Perkara Pidana di Indonesia Berdasarkan Putusan MK RI Nomor 20/PUU-XXI/2023,” Jurnal Hukum dan HAM Wara Sains 2, no. 4 (2023): 259–266, https://doi.org/10.58812/jhhws.v2i04.287
M. Zaid, M. Musa, and Bianglala Asmarasari, “‘Novum’ in Indonesian Criminal Justice: Problems and Legal Reform,” Indonesian Journal of Crime and Criminal Justice 1, no. 1 (2025): 55–88, https://doi.org/10.62264/ijccj.v1i1.121
Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia, “Tafsir Ulang Makna Novum dalam Perkara Pidana,” JDIH Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia. Sumber tersebut menjelaskan bahwa Pasal 318 ayat (5) huruf a dan ayat (6) KUHAP 2025 memberikan konstruksi baru mengenai novum dan PK kedua.
Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia, “Tafsir Ulang Makna Novum dalam Perkara Pidana.”
Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia, Putusan Nomor 20/PUU-XXI/2023, 14 April 2023. Putusan tersebut menyatakan Pasal 30C huruf h dan Penjelasan Pasal 30C huruf h UU No. 11 Tahun 2021 tidak mempunyai kekuatan hukum mengikat.
Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia, Putusan Nomor 33/PUU-XIV/2016, khususnya pertimbangan mengenai Pasal 263 ayat (1) KUHAP dan kedudukan terpidana atau ahli waris sebagai pemohon PK.
Nazhif Ali Murtadho, Muhammad Galuh Pamungkas Wahyu Ramadhan, dan Rama H. Adam, “The Reason of The Legal Term New on Revision (Review) as an Extraordinary Legal Remedy in The Criminal Legal System in Indonesia: Ratio Legis Istilah Novum pada Herziening (Peninjauan Kembali) sebagai Upaya Hukum Luar Biasa dalam Sistem Hukum Pidana di Indonesia,” Al-Jinayah: Jurnal Hukum Pidana Islam 10, no. 2 (2024): 180–197, https://doi.org/10.15642/aj.2024.10.2.180-197.
Pamungkas, Sekar Langit Jatu, M. Junaydy, and Wahab Aznul Hidaya. "Corruption Cases in the 2024 Head Region Elections: A Challenge to the Integrity of Local Democracy." Pakistan Journal of Life & Social Sciences 23.1 (2025): 7850.
Republik Indonesia, Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2025 tentang Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana, ditetapkan 17 Desember 2025 dan berlaku 2 Januari 2026. UU tersebut mencabut UU No. 8 Tahun 1981.
Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 20 Tahun 2025 tentang Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana, Pasal 318 ayat (2).
Zaenal Muttaqin, “Analisis Yuridis Terhadap Kewenangan Jaksa dalam Mengajukan Peninjauan Kembali Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 20/PUU-XXI/2023,” Mustika Justice 4, no. 2 (2025), https://jurnal.uic.ac.id/mustikajustice/article/view/405
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Andre Palisu, Muhammad Asri, Wakano Abd. Kadir
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
