Ulil Manaqib
{"title":"Analisis Yuridis Terhadap Alasan Penemuan Novum Palsu Sebagai Dasar Peninjauan Kembali Kedua dalam Perkara Perdata","authors":"Ulil Manaqib","doi":"10.15642/alhukama.2019.9.1.130-148","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses the juridical analysis of the reasons for the discovery of a fake novum as the basis of a second review in a civil case. This study aims to answer the question of how are the reasons for the discovery of a fake novum as the basis for a second review in a civil case? and how are the legal analysis of a reason for the discovery of a fake novum as a the basis for a second review in a civil case. The reason for receiving the second review in the civil case is based on the discovery of a novum which was declared false by the Criminal Judge of the Bandung District Court that has inkracht, is a reason that falls within the criteria of Article 67 letter (a) which reads: “If the decision is based on a lie or a ruse the opposing party that is known after the case has been decided or based on evidence which is later declared to be false by the criminal judge”, is not classified as a reason for finding novum or the reason there are two conflicting judicial decisions. Secondly, the second review in the pedata and criminal case is only limited to the reason that there are two Judicial Decisions that are interrelated with one another (SEMA Number 10 Year 2009), so in addition to these reasons, the Supreme Court has never issued a policy related to the second mechanism Judicial Review, including on the grounds that a novum has been legally and convincingly found false by a public court.","PeriodicalId":245959,"journal":{"name":"AL-HUKAMA'","volume":"120 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AL-HUKAMA'","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15642/alhukama.2019.9.1.130-148","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文讨论了在民事案件中,对伪造证据被发现的原因进行司法分析,作为二次审查的依据。本研究旨在回答以下问题:在民事案件中,发现假新星的原因是如何作为二次审查的基础的?以及如何在民事案件中对发现假novum的原因进行法律分析作为二次审查的依据。在民事案件中接受第二次审查的理由是,万隆地区法院的刑事法官发现了一处被宣布为虚假的novum,该novum有污点,其理由属于第67条第(a)款的标准,该条规定:“如果判决是基于对方当事人在案件判决后所知的谎言或诡计,或基于后来被刑事法官宣布为虚假的证据”,则不被列为认定无罪的理由或存在两个相互矛盾的司法判决的原因。其次,在数据和刑事案件中的第二次审查仅限于两个相互关联的司法决定(SEMA第10号,2009年)的原因,因此除了这些原因之外,最高法院从未发布过与第二种司法审查机制相关的政策,包括基于公共法院合法且令人信服地发现新情况的理由。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Analisis Yuridis Terhadap Alasan Penemuan Novum Palsu Sebagai Dasar Peninjauan Kembali Kedua dalam Perkara Perdata
This article discusses the juridical analysis of the reasons for the discovery of a fake novum as the basis of a second review in a civil case. This study aims to answer the question of how are the reasons for the discovery of a fake novum as the basis for a second review in a civil case? and how are the legal analysis of a reason for the discovery of a fake novum as a the basis for a second review in a civil case. The reason for receiving the second review in the civil case is based on the discovery of a novum which was declared false by the Criminal Judge of the Bandung District Court that has inkracht, is a reason that falls within the criteria of Article 67 letter (a) which reads: “If the decision is based on a lie or a ruse the opposing party that is known after the case has been decided or based on evidence which is later declared to be false by the criminal judge”, is not classified as a reason for finding novum or the reason there are two conflicting judicial decisions. Secondly, the second review in the pedata and criminal case is only limited to the reason that there are two Judicial Decisions that are interrelated with one another (SEMA Number 10 Year 2009), so in addition to these reasons, the Supreme Court has never issued a policy related to the second mechanism Judicial Review, including on the grounds that a novum has been legally and convincingly found false by a public court.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信