ASAS NEBIS IN IDEM DALAM PERKARA HUKUM INKRACHT YANG DITUNTUT KEMBALI DENGAN SENGKETA OBYEK SAMA NAMUN SUBYEK BERBEDA (Studi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No.80/PUU-XI/2013 Tentang Pengujian Undang-Undang Mahkamah Konstitusi dan Peraturan Pemerintah Pengganti Undang-Undang No.1 Tahun 2013 Terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar Tahun 1945)

The principle of nebis in idem is a prohibition on filing a claim for the second time in a case that is as good as the subject, the object and the reason has been decided by the same court. Regarding the principle of nebis in idem, it can be found in Article 76 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code which reads "Except in the case of Judge Decisions, it is still possible to repeat a person who cannot be prosecuted twice because of an Indonesian judge's trial against him. which becomes fixed. In the sense of an Indonesian Judge including the self-governing and customary Judges in the places that have these courts. "To be able to advance that power, it is necessary that the questions demanded are the same; that the claim is based on the same reason; after all, it was submitted by and to the same parties in the same relationship. However, the State of Indonesia is the State of Law (Rechtsstaat) and Asas is the foundation of thought or opinion. In this study the author conducted a case study of the Constitutional Court Judgment Number 80 / PUU-XI / 2013. The problems discussed in this study are: 1. What is the consideration of the Constitutional Court Judge in deciding case No.80 / PUU-XI / 2013 concerning the Testing of the Constitutional Court Law and Perpu 1/2013 on the 1945 Constitution. 2. What are the legal consequences of the Implementation of Principles in idem Against Decision of the Constitutional Court Number: 80 / PUU-XI / 2013. The method used in this writing is normative juridical with qualitative analysis. The results of the study show that the application of the principle of nebis in idem to the decision of the Constitutional Court Court Number: 80 / PUU-XI / 2013, is not appropriate because in its consideration the Panel of Judges is not objectively based on legal functions in terms of; provide guarantees of Legal Certainty, Legal Justice, and Legal Use to the process of recruiting transparent and participatory Constitutional Justices, even impressed by the Court's alignments with certain State Institutions by the Panel of Judges in deciding the case. In the Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 80 / PUU-XI / 2013 the actual legal objectives have not been achieved, namely justice, legal certainty, and the benefit of the applicant who has been harmed. The provisions stipulated in Article 19 of the Law of the Constitutional Court which are cumulative are not fulfilled, so the case Number: 80 / PUU-XI / 2013, does not give birth to a Decision that gives Justice