Legal Literacy - This article explains the Ultra Petita verdict as part of the new direction of judge progressivity in law enforcement.
Domiunt aliquando leges, nunquam moriuntur. The law does not die, it is only asleep and about to awaken. A legal adage and a metaphorical, even somewhat hyperbolic expression, that more or less represents the situation that occurred in the courtroom of the South Jakarta District Court when the Panel of Judges handed down verdicts one by one against the defendants in the premeditated murder case of Brigadier Yosua Hutabarat.
If we try to go back to a time long before this case was submitted to the Court for trial, public pessimism is still unavoidable. This condition of public anxiety is not unfounded if we try to look at it from the point of view of power relations: who is involved, then what rank and from which institution. The public learns from the experience of witnessing cases involving public officials, even law enforcement officials themselves, often only resulting in disappointment, whether it is a light sentence or even leading to a reduction in the period of detention.
After reading all the extremely thick, long and tiring verdict files, the Panel of Judges, led by Judge Wahyu Imam Santoso, in a faltering and trembling tone and voice, firmly and bravely handed down a criminal verdict death against the defendant Ferdi Sambo. Not even a few seconds after the gavel was struck, the emotionally charged cheers of the courtroom visitors filled the atmosphere of the courtroom, which was initially tense and thrilling, with a long sigh of relief and satisfaction.
After reading all the extremely thick, long and tiring verdict files, the Panel of Judges, led by Judge Wahyu Imam Santoso, in a faltering and trembling tone and voice, firmly and bravely handed down a death sentence against the defendant Ferdi Sambo. Not even a few seconds after the gavel was struck, the emotionally charged cheers of the courtroom visitors filled the atmosphere of the courtroom, which was initially tense and thrilling, with a long sigh of relief and satisfaction.
The difficult, winding and problematic path taken by the Panel of Judges South Jakarta District Court should be the right momentum to revive and regrow new optimism about the independence and freedom of the judiciary as well as efforts to re-legitimize public trust in the “representatives of God†to provide justice, legal certainty and benefit. However, it should also be remembered that this case is not final or has not yet had permanent legal force (in kracht van gewijsde) because the defendants and their legal advisors will certainly make various legal efforts in the form of appeals to the High Court to cassation to the Supreme Court later.
Departing from a series of rounds and stages that have been passed (starting from the reading of the indictment to ending with the reading of the verdict), there is one other thing that has resurfaced to the public regarding the length of the sentence given by the Panel of Judges which is much higher than what the Public Prosecutor demanded.
Comments (0)
Write a comment