The Power to Judge District Court Decision

A court decision is an official decision issued by a court after considering evidence, legal arguments, and other relevant considerations in a legal case. This decision determines the final outcome of the legal process that takes place, including whether the defendant is found guilty or not guilty, as well as the sanctions or punishments imposed if the defendant is proven guilty. Court decisions are based on applicable law, principles of justice, and the facts revealed during the trial. Court decisions are usually binding on the parties involved in the case and can be enforced in accordance with the legal procedures in force in a country.

As the foundation for the implementation of the judicial system in Indonesia based on jurisdiction or separation court system based on jurisdiction, the existence of general courts is actually only limited to the landscape of criminal and civil cases. Different from criminal cases which are public in nature, civil disputes are limited to aspects of individual interest relations and the nature of the court's decision only applies and binds to the parties in the case, not generally binding (erga omnes).

It is very regrettable if such a simple concept is not used by the Central Jakarta District Court, which prefers and takes a bold step by violating the norms, doctrines, and legal theories available. Even though in reality it is clear and evident that Articles 10 and 11 in PERMA Number 2 of 2019 have provided guidelines regarding the settlement of disputes over government actions and the authority to adjudicate unlawful acts by government bodies and/or officials (Onrechtmatige Overheidsdaad) which are carried out in the State Administrative Court (PTUN), not in the District Court.

Furthermore, in legal doctrine, one of the principles known is ius curia novit. This means that the judge is deemed to know all the laws. Consequently, the judge is obliged to explore, search for, and find the law that lives in society and the law that is codified/written in statutory regulations. If from the beginning the panel of judges departed from and relied on this principle, it is possible that the a quo case would not have created a court decision which is truly extraordinary to postpone the election, the implications of which are not trivial, namely on a national scale.

From the beginning, the principle of ius curia novit was not intended to reject cases and block justice seekers from demanding their rights. A strict curation and filtering process is important to ensure that cases that enter the court for examination are not only of high quality but also in accordance with the corridor.