scholarly journals Conflict of Civil Society Movement and Government in the Process of Developing of The Job Creation Bill

PROPAGANDA ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-22
Author(s):  
M. Masad Masrur
Keyword(s):  
Conflict Resolution ◽  
Civil Society ◽  
Interest Groups ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Job Creation ◽  
Violent Conflict ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Community Groups ◽  
Public Facilities ◽  
The Government

The discussion room for the Work Creation Bill is officially located at the DPR RI Building. The discussion, which involved various interest groups, was deemed insufficient to accommodate the “rejecting” aspirations expressed by various community groups. Several community groups who are members of various civil society movements, held demonstrations outside the DPR RI Building as a venue for discussion of the Job Creation Bill. Demonstrations that also took place in these areas have caused damage to public facilities. According to Habermas's opinion, this condition is the result of structural domination, where the ruling group directs various forms of policy with instrumental communication that will not create understanding. In agreement with Gramsci, in this case, there is a political hegemony between one group against another. The government, which has an interest in immediately completing the deliberation of the Job Creation Bill, through the power of political domination, seeks to exercise hegemony against the civil society movement, causing violent conflict. Conflict resolution in the discussion of the Work Creation Bill is structurally carried out by using the state law approach in accordance with the prevailing laws and regulations. In accordance with the mandate of the constitution, all matters relating to regulations, a judicial review can be carried out at the Constitutional Court.

scholarly journals Reflections on the Relationship between the Government and Civil Society Organizations during the Covid-19 Pandemic: The Israeli Case

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hillel Schmid
Keyword(s):  
Health Economic ◽  
Civil Society ◽  
Interest Groups ◽  
Financial Support ◽  
Strategic Behavior ◽  
Modern Society ◽  
Civil Society Organizations ◽  
Power Dependence ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract The paper analyzes the relations between the government and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) during the COVID-19 pandemic in Israel. The paper presents the inconsistent policy of the government, which has been influenced by various interest groups and the very limited financial support allocated to CSOs during the health, economic and social crisis. The paper describes the government’s alienated attitude toward the CSOs as well as the reasons for that behavior. Special attention is devoted to the government’s misunderstanding of the mission and roles of CSOs in modern society, especially at times of crisis and national disasters. The paper also analyzes the organizational and strategic behavior of CSOs toward the government, which has also contributed to the alienated attitude of the government toward them. I argue that relations between CSOs and the government should be based on more trust, mutuality, and understanding on the part of both actors in order to change power-dependence relations, and that there is a need to establish more cross-sectoral partnerships for the benefit of citizens.

The Concentrated and Hybrid Models of Judicial Review

2021 ◽  
pp. 27-38
Author(s):  
Steven Gow Calabresi
Keyword(s):  
Complex System ◽  
Latin America ◽  
Hybrid Model ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Hybrid Models ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
The Government

This chapter examines the two models of judicial review that exist in the civil law countries: the Concentrated Model and the Hybrid Model. The Concentrated Model of judicial review is built around the idea that what judges do when they enforce constitutions and Bills of Rights is inherently political and nonjudicial. For this reason, a separate Constitutional Court is created outside the ordinary judicial system, and is the only entity with the power of judicial review. The power of judicial review of Constitutional Courts is conceived as being a power to make the law and not simply to interpret it. Hence, a Constitutional Court in a civil law country is, essentially, a fourth branch of the government. Meanwhile, many countries, especially in Latin America, have developed distinct Hybrid Models of judicial review. The country of Brazil can be considered as the archetypal Hybrid Model. Brazil’s Hybrid Model of judicial review consists of a very complex system full of institutional mechanisms that are meant to enforce the Constitution. The Brazilian system combines features from both the Concentrated and the Diffuse Models hence the term Hybrid Model.

From Parliament to Courtroom

2015 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 120-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lubomír Kopeček ◽  
Jan Petrov
Keyword(s):  
Transitional Justice ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Political System ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
The Political ◽  
Legislative Process ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Lower House ◽  
Strong Position ◽  
The Government

The Czech Constitutional Court has gained a strong position within the political system. This article examines the judicial review of legislation from the point of view of the relation between the court and the parliament. The authors analyze trends in the use of petitions proposing the annulment of statutes, who makes use of the petitions, how successful the petitioners are, and what issues the petitions concern. The article pairs a quantitative view with a qualitative analysis of key selected decisions by the court, especially in the sphere of mega-politics. The authors test whether judicial review of legislation serves as a tool for parliamentary opposition. The results show the decisive effects of a legislative majority in the lower house of the parliament. If the government lacks a majority, the use of judicial review of legislation as an oppositional tool fades. Also important is the weakness of the upper house, which makes senators more likely to resort to using judicial review of legislation. An especially crucial factor is the presence of independent and semi-independent senators who, without broader political backing, see judicial review of legislation as a welcome tool. The most frequent topics of the petitions were transitional justice, social policy, and the legislative process.

scholarly journals Pengawasan terhadap Kebijakan Pemerintah Melalui Mekanisme Citizen Lawsuit

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 906
Author(s):  
Cholidin Nasir
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Class Action ◽  
Government Policies ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
State Law ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Government ◽  
Settlement Of Disputes

Salah satu unsur terpenting negara hukum menurut Sri Soemantri adalah pengawasan dari badan-badan peradilan. Salah satu bentuk pengawasan adalah judicial review yang dilakukan oleh Mahkamah Agung dan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Namun, tidak semua tindakan pemerintah berdasarkan peraturan perundang-undangan yang telah ada. Beberapa tindakan atau kebijakan pemerintah justru lahir lebih dahulu sebelum adanya peraturan perundang-undangan yang mengatur dan bahkan beberapa peraturan perundang-undangan dibentuk untuk melahirkan kebijakan pemerintah yang justru merugikan warga negara.Terkadang sengketa hukum terjadi bermula dari kebijakan yang dikeluarkan oleh pemerintah, yangseharusnya mempertimbangkan kepentingan umum atau kepentingan orang banyak (publik)dan bukan hanya kepentingan orang per orang saja, namun kenyataannya banyak terjadi suatu kebijakan merugikan kepentingan umum, sehingga acapkali kepentingan umum diabaikan yang pada akhirnya kepentingan umum tidak lagi menjadi prioritas utama. Hal inilah yang menjadi penyebab pelanggaran hukum yang dilakukan oleh penguasa. Terjadinya pelanggaran hukum inilah yang menimbulkan daya dorong bagi masyarakat untuk ikut berperan serta dalam upaya menyelesaikan sengketa guna menegakkan hukum.Dalam tulisan ini penulis hanya akan membahas penyelesaian melalui badan peradilan sebagai salah satu syarat dari negara hukum (rechtstaat) yaitu judicial control. Badan peradilan merupakan suatu badan yang memegang peranan penting dalam penyelesaian sengketa. Salah satu gugatan kelompok yang dilakukan oleh para pencari keadilan adalah gugatan citizen lawsuit;One of the most important elements of state law by Sri Soemantri is the supervision of the judicial authorities. One form of oversight is judicial review conducted by the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court. However, not all government action based on legislation that has been there. Some activities or government policies born before the legislation that governs and even some legislation established to give birth to government policies that harm the citizens. Sometimes a legal dispute occurs stems from policies issued by the government, which should take into consideration the public interest or the interests of many (public) and not just the interests of individuals. There were many cases of a policy detrimental to the public interest so that often the public interest is ignored that the ultimately the public interest is no longer a top priority. This is the cause of the violation committed by the authorities. Violations of the laws are what caused the impetus for the public to participate in efforts to resolve the dispute to enforce the law. In this paper, the authors will only discuss a settlement through the judiciary as one of the requirements of state law (rechtstaat) is judicial control. The judiciary is a body that plays important role in the settlement of disputes. One of a class action carried out by those seeking justice is a citizen lawsuit.

scholarly journals Refleksi Konstitusionalitas Pengawasan Peraturan Daerah Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 137/PUU-XIII/2015

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 391
Author(s):  
Firdaus Firdaus
Keyword(s):  
Local Government ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Central Government ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Standing ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Government ◽  
And Function ◽  
The Relationship

Peraturan Daerah (Perda) sebagai produk hukum pemerintahan daerah untuk mengatur dan memerintah sendiri sebagai manifestasi otonomi, tetapi dalam praktiknya sering kali dihadapkan dengan penundaan atau pembatalan akibat fungsi pengawasan preventif atau represif oleh Pemerintah. Melalui Putusan Nomor 137/PUU-XIII/2015, Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK) meneguhkan fungsi pengawasan preventif dan membatalkan fungsi pengawasan represif dengan harapan: pertama mengakhiri dilema konstitusional fungsi Pengawasan Pemerintah terhadap Perda; kedua, memperkuat otonomi daerah; dan ketiga, meneguhkan pengujian perda sebagai kompetensi Mahkamah Agung (MA). Namun hal tersebut justru menciptakan dikotomi baru, baik terkait hubungan Pemerintah Pusat dengan pemerintahan daerah maupun dalam memaknai fungsi pengawasan represif dihubungkan dengan kompetensi MA menguji peraturan perundang-undangan di bawah undang-undang terhadap undang-undang. Bentuk dikotomi baru yang dimaksud; pertama, merevitalisasi instrumen sentralisme; dan kedua mereduksi otonomi dan fungsi kekuasaan Pemerintah dengan karakteristik yang bersifat aktif, sepihak (bersegi satu) dalam mengawasi dan memastikan pelaksanaan undangundang. Dimensi konstitusional yang harus dipastikan, bahwa pelaksanaan fungsi pengawasan represif terhadap Perda memberi kedudukan hukum bagi Pemerintah Daerah otonom untuk dapat mengajukan permohonan pengujian kepada MA.Local Regulation (Perda) as a legal product of local government is to regulate and govern itself as a manifestation of autonomy. Yet, in practice it is often confronted with delays or cancellations due to the Government's preventive or repressive supervision functions. Through Decision Number 137 / PUU-XIII / 2015, the Constitutional Court (MK) affirmed the function of preventive supervision and canceled the repressive supervision function in the hope of: first, ending the constitutional dilemma of the Government Oversight function on Local Regulations; second, strengthening local autonomy; and third, confirm the perda review as Supreme Court (MA) competency. However, this actually creates a new dichotomy, both in relation to the relationship between the Central Government and the local government and in interpreting the repressive monitoring function associated with the MA competency in examining the legislation under the regulations toward the statute. The form of the new dichotomy in intended; firstly, revitalize the instrument of centralism; and secondly reducing the autonomy and function of the Government's power with active, unilateral (onesided) characteristics in supervising and ensuring the implementation of the statute. The constitutional dimension that must be ensured is that the implementation of the repressive oversight function of the Local Regulation gives a legal standing for the autonomous local Government to be able to submit an application for judicial review to the Supreme Court.

scholarly journals JUDICIAL REVIEW SEBAGAI SARANA PERLINDUNGAN HAK-HAK ASASI WARGA NEGARA

2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (22) ◽  
pp. 170-181
Author(s):  
Safi’ Safi’
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Recent Time ◽  
Public Acceptance ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Community Groups ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Laws And Regulations

Observing the development of public acceptance of the substance of the laws that were generated in recent time, the right of judicial review of an option that can not be avoided for the 'correct' errors that might occur in a legal product to guarantee the protection of constitutional rights of citizens. The tendency in this direction can be seen from the desire of some community groups to apply for judicial review and claim that they are legal products containing controversial value both to the Supreme Court nor the Constitutional Court. If prior to the amendment of the 1945 Constitution, laws and regulations that can be petitioned for review of material just under the Act against the Constitution, but after the 1945 amendment, the legislation level as the Act was that the Act and also Perpu material can be petitioned for review to the Constitutional Court.

scholarly journals Fenomena Two in One Pengujian Perppu

2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 257
Author(s):  
Iskandar Muda
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Government Regulation ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Procedure ◽  
State Institutions ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Government ◽  
Legislative Review ◽  
Legal Procedures

Dua lembaga negara sama-sama berwenang menguji Peraturan Pemerintah Pengganti Undang-Undang (Perppu); Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat (DPR) “berwenang” berdasarkan Pasal 22 ayat (2) dan ayat (3) Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia 1945, sedangkan Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK) berdasarkan putusannya No. 138/PUU-VII/2009 menyatakan “berwenang pula.” Dengan adanya dua lembaga negara yang mempunyai kewenangan yang sama tersebut maka (dapat) terjadi fenomena. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum dengan menggunakan pendekatan normatif. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa ada tiga bentuk fenomena Two in One Pengujian Perppu yang (dapat) terjadi. Pertama, “judicial examination for constitutionality to Perppu pre-legislative review.” Kedua, “judicial examination for constitutionality to Perppu post-legislative review.” Ketiga, jika terjadi judicial review Perppu di MK baik dalam keadaan bentuk fenomena pertama atau fenomena kedua tetapi dalam waktu yang berlarut-larut DPR tidak memberikan keputusan tidak menyetujui atau menyetujui Perppu menjadi undang-undang. Prosedur hukum untuk bentuk fenomena kedua tidak jauh berbeda dengan prosedur hukum fenomena bentuk pertama; prosedur hukum serta yang dijadikan dasar pertimbangannya mempunyai kesamaan. Sedangkan prosedur hukum untuk bentuk fenomena ketiga perlu pula dikaji lebih lanjut secara mendalam untuk mencapai titik temu oleh dua pihak (DPR dan MK) yang berwenang menguji Perppu. Bentuk fenomena dan prosedur hukum pertama dan kedua bisa dikatakan sebagai jenis kewenangan yang bersifat pasif. Sedangkan bentuk fenomena dan prosedur hukum yang ketiga bisa dikatakan sebagai jenis kewenangan yang bersifat aktif.Two state institutions are equally authorized to test the Government Regulation in Lieu of Laws (Perppu); The House of Representatives (DPR) is “authorized” based on Article 22 paragraph (2) and paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, while the Constitutional Court (MK) based on its verdict No. 138/PUU-VII/2009 declared “authorized as well.” With the existence of two state institutions that have the same authority, then the phenomena (can) happen. This research is a legal research using normative approach. The results of the study showed that there are three forms of phenomena of Two in One Perppu review which (can) happened. First, “judicial examination for the constitutionality to Perppu pre-legislative review.” Second, “judicial examination for the constitutionality to Perppu post-legislative review.” Third, in the case of Perppu judicial review in the Constitutional Court, either in the form of the first phenomenon or the second phenomenon, yet in the long period the DPR does not give a decision whether to approve the Perppu or not into the law. The legal procedure for the form of the second phenomenon is not much different from the legal procedure of the first form phenomenon; legal procedures and the basis of their considerations are merely the same. While the legal procedure for the third form of the phenomenon should also be studied further in depth to reach the final point by two parties (DPR and MK) authorized to review the Perppu. The first and the second forms of the phenomena and legal procedures can be regarded as a kind of passive authority. While the third form of the phenomena and legal procedures can be regarded as a type of active authority.

scholarly journals Hapusnya Wewenang Executive Review Pemerintah terhadap Peraturan Daerah: Studi Pasca-adanya Putusan MK Nomor 137/PUU-XIII/2015 dan Nomor 56/PUU XIV/2016

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lusy Liany
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Government Control ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
Internal Affair ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Government ◽  
Legal Opinion

The Constitutional Court, on April 4, 2017, through the Decision No.137/PUU-XIII/2015 has invalidated the enactment of the rules that enabled a Governor to annul Regency/City Laws. On June 14, 2017, with the Decision No.56/PUU-XIV/2016, the Court also invalidated the authority of Ministry of Internal Affair to void Provincial Laws. These decisions brought about a question on whether the government still has the authority to revise those regional laws or it can only be taken through the material review to the judiciary. Based on the background, the authors formulated two problems. Firstly, what is the mechanism of government control of the Regional Regulation after the Constitutional Court Decision Number 137 / PUU-XIII / 2015 and the Court's Decision Number 56/PUU-XIV/2016? Secondly, what are the obstacles to judicial review of regional regulations in the Supreme Court? The research method applied in this paper is a normative method in which qualitative data are gathered and the statute and conceptual approaches are employed. First result, the government, both the Minister of Internal Affairs and the Governor, can oversee the regional law-making process through the executive preview mechanism and the annulation of both Province and Regency/City Laws is in the domain of the Supreme Court's authority. Second, the judicial review process in the Supreme Court has not fully met the legal principles of judicial review process, as it is not open to public, there is no deadline to finish the trial, and the Supreme Court’s decision is not supported by sufficient details of judges’ legal opinion.

scholarly journals Abolishing Child Marriage in Indonesia’s Marriage Law through Feminist Legal Theory and Child’s Rights Approach

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 117
Author(s):  
Atnike Nova Sigiro
Keyword(s):  
Civil Society ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Legal Theory ◽  
Child Marriage ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Marriage Law ◽  
Feminist Legal Theory ◽  
Minimum Age ◽  
The Law ◽  
Gender Based

<div>The Law No. 1 year of 1974 on Marriage Law had set the minimum age for marriage of 16 years old for women and 19 years old for men. This minimum age for setting up marriage is not only a form of legalization for conducting child marriage, but also a form of legalized gender-based discrimination, particularly against girls. In 2019, the Law was finally revised thus the discriminating set of minimum</div><div>age for marriage was abolished, and the minimum age was set into 19 years old for both women and men. Koalisi 18+ is a civil society network in Indonesia, which work to abolish legalized child marriage through the revision of Marriage Law. They work through judicial review of the Marriage Law at the Constitutional Court, and also through encouraging revision of the Marriage Law at the parliament</div><div>(DPR). This article describes and analyze the key discourses appeared during the effort to abolish and revise the Marriage Law No.1 Year 1974 through child’s rights and feminist legal approaches.</div>

scholarly journals JUDICIAL ACTIVISM IN INDONESIA

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 160-177
Author(s):  
Rahayu Prasetianingsih
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Judicial Activism ◽  
Constitutional Interpretation ◽  
National Assembly ◽  
State Institutions ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Culture ◽  
The Government

The existence of Constitutional Court becomes important as requisite for the rule of law principle and democracy in Indonesia. Amendment of the Constitution by Indonesia National Assembly has chosen to share judicial power held by the Supreme Court and Constitutional Court with the authority to judicial review of legislation to the Constitution. The Constitutional Court as Guardian of the Constitution has its own role in establishing constitutional culture in Indonesia. Commitment to constitutionalism is adistinctive constitutional culture which will also develop the constitution itself. Commitment to UUD 1945 as the limitation to the powers and a guarantee of constitutional rights that must be protected by the Constitutional Court with the authority to review as the implementation of Indonesia constitutionalism. Constitutional culture discuss in this paper is focused on understanding constitutional culture which will affect the implementation of the constitution by "the formal institutions of the state", especially in relation to the citizenry. The Constitutional Court in review of the legislation to the constitution has used various methods of Constitutional interpretation to uphold the law and substantive justice. From several decisions seem that the constitutional interpretation made by the Constitutional Court was expanding the existing notions of UUD 1945 or event change the constitution. The Constitutional Court leads to judicial activism and can be said that the constitutional court has become super body. On the other side, presence of the Constitutional Court expected to complement the government system of Indonesia, in accordance with the function can motivate the performance of other state institutions, in this case the legislator in order to establish better legislation. Abstrak: Mahkamah Konstitusi menjadi syarat penting bagi terwujudnya prinsip negara hukum dan demokrasi di Indonesia. Perubahan Konstitusi oleh Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat telah membagi kekuasaan kehakiman kepada Mahkamah Agung dan Mahkamah Konstitusi dengan kewenangan pengujian undang-undang terhadap Konstitusi. Mahkamah Konstitusi sebagai Penjaga Konstitusi memiliki peran tersendiri dalam membangun budaya konstitusi di Indonesia. Komitmen terhadap konstitusionalisme merupakan budaya konstitusi yang khas yang juga akan mendinamisasi konstitusi itu sendiri. Komitmen terhadap UUD 1945 sebagai pembatasan kekuasaan dan jaminan hak konstitusional yang harus dilindungi oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi dengan kewenangan pengujian sebagai implementasi konstitusionalisme Indonesia. Budaya konstitusi yang dibahas dalam tulisan ini fokus pada pemahaman budaya konstitusi yang akan mempengaruhi pelaksanaan konstitusi oleh "lembaga formal negara", terutama dalam kaitannya dengan warga negara. Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam menguji undang-undang terhadap konstitusi telah menggunakan berbagai metode penafsiran Konstitusi untuk menegakkan hukum dan keadilan substantif. Dari beberapa putusan tampak bahwa penafsiran konstitusi yang dilakukan oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi merupakan perluasan dari pengertian UUD 1945 yang sudah ada atau bahkan mengubah konstitusi. Mahkamah Konstitusi mengarah pada judicial activism dan dapat dikatakan bahwa Mahkamah Konstitusi telah menjadi super body. Di sisi lain, kehadiran Mahkamah Konstitusi diharapkan dapat melengkapi sistem pemerintahan Indonesia, sesuai dengan fungsinya dapat memotivasi kinerja lembaga negara lainnya, dalam hal ini pembentuk undang-undang agar dapat membentuk peraturan perundang-undangan yang lebih baik.Kata Kunci: Judicial Review, Penafsiran Konstitusi, Budaya Konstitusi  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document