Judical review form a legal remedi of extraordinary about verdict have legal force. On
the Article 263 Clause (1) KUHAP very explicit regulated that who subject could
application submission of judical review is a prisoner or legal heir, because purpose of
judical review is heal prisoner has right, at the time already take because of country is
not legal means verdict has before. This legal reseach has purpose to know consistency
of the Article 263 KUHAP, nowhere on the practice as example case of Muchtar
Pakpahan and Pollycarpus Budihari Priyanto when Public Prosecutor has application
submission of judical review and accept by Supreme Court. This is of course has
againts Article 263 Clause (1) KUHAP has characteristic limitative, bacause on the
Article 263 Clause (1) KUHAP very explicit regulated who application submission of
judical review only prisoner or legal heir. Infraction of the Article 263 Clause (1) KUHAP
must be give consequence of law. The method of this legal research used normative
research which focussed on norms and supported by secondary data as main data.
Source of data consisted of primary legal material and secondary legal material. The
result of this legal research showed implemantation of Article 263 KUHAP is
consistency because who application submission of judical review must a prisoner or
legal heir, but on the example cased as Muchtar Pakpahan and Pollycarpus Budihari
Priyanto application submission of judical review by Public Prosecutor and accept by
Supreme Court. Besides of that consequence of law never give about infraction of the
Article 263 KUHAP which did by Public Prosecutor and Supreme Court. Because of
that, implementation on Article 263 KUHAP must to be consistency and in order to not
occur infraction Article 263 KUHAP therefore give a consequence of law.