No abstract

Indonesia is a state of law, and one of the characteristics of a state of the law is upholding human rights, a free judiciary, and legality. Therefore, every applicable rule must be a reference for behavior in society. One of the matters relating to a review in a case must be in accordance with the legal provisions that govern it. However, at this time the review by the public prosecutor invites debate from legal experts. The method used in this research is normative legal research. Data in the form of primary legal materials and secondary materials with qualitative analysis. The results show that the Supreme Court has the authority to make breakthroughs to fill the legal void and update the law according to community developments. This breakthrough must be followed by the belief that there has been an error in the application of the law. This is different from the review of the convict Muchtar Pakpahan which was not a mistake in the application of the law. Therefore, the Supreme Court must be responsible for the reasons for accepting and deciding the case for review. The provisions in the elucidation of Article 21 are quite clear in stating that the review is only intended for the convict and his heirs. The explanation does not explain at all what the parties concerned mean. Therefore, the public prosecutor in the case of review interprets the article according to its interests to apply for a review (PK).   Indonesia adalah negara hukum, salah satu ciri dari negara hukum dengan menjunjung tinggi terhadap hak asasi manusia, peradilan yang bebas dan legalitas.  Oleh karena itu setiap aturan yang berlaku harus menjadi acuan untuk berperilaku dalam masyarakat. Salah satunya hal yang berkaitan dengan peninjauan kembali dalam suatu perkara harus sesuai dengan ketentuan hukum yang mengaturnya. Namun saat ini Peninjauan kembali oleh jaksa penuntut umum mengundang perdebatan dari para ahli hukum.  Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian adalah penelitian hukum normatif. Data berupa bahan hukum primer dan bahan sekunder dengan analisa kualitatif. Hasil penelitian bahwa Mahkamah Agung berwenang melakukan terobosan untuk mengisi kokosongan hukum dan memperbarui hukum sesuai perkembangan masyarakat. Terobosan  tersebut harus diikuti keyakinan adanya kesalahan dalam penerapan hukum. Hal tersebut berbeda dengan peninjauan kembali dengan terpidana Muchtar Pakpahan yang bukan merupakan kesalahan dalam penerapan hukum. Oleh karena itu, Mahkamah Agung harus mempertanggungjawabkan alasan menerima dan memutus perkara peninjauan kembali itu. Ketentuan dalam penjelasan Pasal 21 itu telah cukup tegas menyatakan peninjauan kembali hanya diperuntukan bagi terpidana dan ahli warisnya. Pada penjelasan sama sekali tidak diterangkan apa yang dimaksud pihak-pihak yang bersangkutan. Oleh karena itu, jaksa penuntut umum pada perkara peninjauan kembali menafsirkan pasal tersebut sesuai kepentingannya untuk mengajukan peninjauan kembali (PK).

Background and context: “Kiddie packs”–packs of 10 or fewer cigarettes–have been banned in Malaysia in 2010. In August 2017, however, tobacco control civil society organizations (CSOs) were informed that the tobacco industry had approached the Malaysian government on this issue, claiming that a “return” would increase the government’s tobacco tax revenue. Unfortunately, this news was not formalised and CSOs were not allowed to reveal the source. We thus could not implement direction action organizing, and the media is much less likely to respond to “smoke without fires”. Aim: To stop the return of kiddie packs. Strategy/Tactics: Through discussions on a WhatsApp group, CSOs launched a “divide and conquer” battle. After a CSO took the risk and leaked the information to media (without revealing its source), many groups built on the voice, and “smoked out” the enemy. A few CSOs tackled a different front, including using social media to gather voices, rallying the support of policymakers, other ministers, and nonhealth civil societies, and coordinating a visit to the government. Program/Policy process: After a CSO disclosed the “kiddie pack” news to the largest selling daily newspaper, many groups followed up with interviews, media statements and letters. Meantime, another CSO reached out to its network of policymakers and nonhealth CSOs for support, and sent briefing points or draft “letters to the government” with key messages that tailored to the senders´ specialty (human rights, environment, etc.) When a protobacco retailer announced it had 3200 signatures from their members, one CSO launched an online petition on its Facebook page, shared the effects of kiddie packs on adolescents, and gathered 10 times the signature within a month. The final effort was a visit to the government - a tactic used by the e-cigarette industry previously - to submit the signatures and statement. Outcomes: The “leak” resulted in a front page coverage, allowing the Health Minister to state his views, and other CSOs to use it as a platform to voice their protest. It was also publicised in mainstream as well as online news in different languages. Within two weeks, the tobacco industry finally revealed its intention, and coordinated its media responses through its supporters. Each of these responses were met - point by point–by CSOs, resulting in at least 20 published “letters”. Nearly 40,400 (online and offline) signatures were gathered, representing 57 CSOs. To date, kiddie packs have not made a “return”. What was learned: Instant messaging applications and social media tools can replace meetings and on-the-ground efforts, especially when CSOs lack funds, time, and human resources. Also, great campaigns should consist of general (e.g., writing to the media) as well as specialized (social media, networking with policymakers) efforts. This allows different CSOs to focus their strengths, avoid redundant tasks or “working in silos”, and have every contribution count.