scholarly journals The Attempt to Human Rights Protection Through Judicial Review in Indonesia

2018 ◽  
Vol 54 ◽  
pp. 02006
Author(s):  
Riris Ardhanariswari ◽  
Muhammad Fauzan ◽  
Ahmad Komari
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
State Government ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Stable State ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
The Law ◽  
Law And Justice ◽  
Parliamentary Supremacy

The Constitutional Court is one of the perpetrators of judicial power, in addition to the Supreme Court as referred to in Article 24 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. The Constitutional Court is also bound to the general principle of an independent judicial power, free from the influence of other institutions in enforcing law and justice. The Constitutional Court is the first and last level judicial body, or it can be said that it is the only judicial body whose decisions are final and binding. The existence of the Constitutional Court is at the same time to maintain the implementation of a stable state government and is also a correction to the experience of constitutional life in the past caused by multiple interpretations of the constitution. Judicial review towards the constitution is one of the authorities of the Constitutional Court that attracted attention. This shows that there has also been a shift in the doctrine of the parliamentary supremacy towards the doctrine of the supremacy of the constitution. The law was previously inviolable, but now the existence of a law is questionable in its alignment with the Constitution. The authority to examine the Law towards the Constitution is the authority of the Constitutional Court as the guardian of the constitution. This authority is carried out to safeguard the provisions of the Act so that it does not conflict with the constitution and / or impair the constitutional rights of citizens. This shows that the judicial review towards the Constitution carried out by the Constitutional Court is basically also to provide protection for human rights.

scholarly journals KEWENANGAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI REPUBLIK INDONESIA DALAM PEMBENTUKAN NORMA BARU (SUATU KAJIAN TERHADAP PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI NOMOR 21/PUU-XII/2014 JO PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI NOMOR 46/PUU-XIV/2016)

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 474
Author(s):  
Elisabet . ◽  
Cut Memi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Legal Norm ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Criminal Sanctions ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Republic

One of the authorities of the Constitutional Court governed by the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945 was the examining of laws against the contitution or judicial review. Inside the regulations which governing the implementation of this authority, the Constitutional Court only acts as a negative legislator, namely canceling or reinforcing a norm tested by the Petitioner. But in practice, the Constitutional Court has changed its role to become a positive legislator, who is forming a new legal norm, which is the authority of legislators. The Constitutional Court should not be able to form a new legal norm because there is no legal basis which regulate that. But Constitutional Court can form a new legal norm in some urgent circumstances, relating to Human Rights, and preventing legal vacuum. In addition, the establishment of laws by lawmakers that require a long process and time. This is compelling Constitutional Court to make substitute norm before the law was established by the legislators. In the Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 46/PUU-XVI/2016, the Court actually wants to establish a new legal norm, but because the articles in the petitioned have criminal sanctions, and if the Constitutional Court approves the petition, the Constitutional Court has formulated a new criminal act that can only be formed by the lawmaker. Whereas in the Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 21/PUU-XII/2014, the Constitutional Court established a new norm because in the article a quo there were no criminal sanctions.

scholarly journals Penerapan Asas Audi Alteram Et Partem Pada Perkara Judicial review Di Mahkamah Agung

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 37
Author(s):  
Asep Syarifuddin Hidayat
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Public ◽  
Trial Process ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Impact

Abstract.Article 13 paragraph 1 of Act Number 48 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power states that all court hearings are open to the public, unless the Act says otherwise. Therefore, a judicial review trial must be open to the public. If the trial process of the judicial review is carried out in a closed manner, it can be considered a legal defect, because it is contrary to Article 13 paragraph (3) of the Law. The Law of the Supreme Court is not regulated that the judicial review is closed, because in the judicial review there is a need for openness or principle of audiences of parties or litigants must be given the opportunity to provide information and express their opinions, including the defendant as the maker of Legislation invitation under the law, so that the impact of the decision will need to be involved.Keywords: Judicial Review, Audi Alteram Et Partem Principle, Supreme Court, Constitutional Court Abstrak.Pasal 13 ayat 1 Undang-Undang Nomor 48 Tahun 2009 tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman menyebutkan semua sidang pemeriksaan pengadilan terbuka untuk umum, kecuali Undang-Undang berkata lain. Oleh karena itu,  judicial review persidangan harus dilakukan terbuka untuk umum. Apabila proses persidangan judicial review ini dilakukan secara tertutup, maka dapat dinilai cacat hukum karena bertentangan dengan Pasal 13 ayat (3) Undang-Undang tersebut. Undang-Undang Mahkamah Agung pun tidak diatur bahwa persidangan judicial review bersifat tertutup, karena dalam judicial review perlu adanya keterbukaan atau asas audi alteram et partem atau pihak-pihak yang berperkara harus diberi kesempatan untuk memberikan keterangan dan menyampaikan pendapatnya termasuk pihak termohon sebagai  pembuat Peraturan Perundang-Undangan di bawah Undang-Undang sehingga akan terkena dampak putusan perlu dilibatkan.Kata Kunci: Judicial Review, Asas Audi Alteram Et Partem, Mahkamah Agung, Mahkamah Konstitusi.

scholarly journals Hak Asasi Manusia Dalam Kerangka Negara Hukum: Catatan Perjuangan di Mahkamah Konstitusi

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andi Muhammad Asrun
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Constitutional State ◽  
Setting Mechanism ◽  
The One ◽  
Individual Human

Abstract: Human rights on the one hand by the concept of natural law is an inherent right of every individual human being since birth, but on the other hand the legality of human rights must be shaped by the flow of positivism. The debate over whether human rights should be stipulated in the constitution also influence the discussion of the UUD 1945. Finally, the UUD 1945 amendments regulate the basic rights of citizens more fully starts from the premise that human rights protection is an important element in the concept of a constitutional state. Incorporated therein also setting mechanism of "judicial review" in the Constitutional Court as a means to avoid any legislation contrary to the fundamental rights of citizens as guaranteed in the constitution. Abstrak: Hak Asasi Manusia Dalam Kerangka Negara Hukum: Catatan Perjuangan di Mahkamah Konstitusi. Hak asasi manusia pada satu sisi menurut konsep hukum alam adalah suatu hak yang melekat pada setiap individu manusia sejak dilahirkan, tetapi pada sisi lain hak asasi harus bentuk legalitas menurut aliran positivisme. Perdebatan apakah hak asasi manusia harus diatur dalam konstitusi atau tidak perlu dimuat dalam konstitusi juga mewarnai pembahasan UUD 1945. Amandemen UUD 1945 pasca berakhirnya 32 tahun Pemerintahan Orde Baru di bawah Suharto membawa perubahan significant UUD 1945. Pasca amandemen UUD 1945, konstitusi mengatur secara umum hak warganegara secara lebih lengkap. Perlindungan hak asasi manusia merupakan satu elemen penting dalam konsep negara hukum. Pasca amandemen konstitusi, UUD 1945 mengatur hak-hak dasar warganegara yang lebih lengkap bertitik tolak dari pemikiran bahwa perlindungan hak asasi manusia merupakan satu elemen penting dalam konsep negara hukum. UUD 1945 pasca amandemen memasukkan pengaturan hak warga negara lebih rinci serta mekanisme “judicial review” di Mahkamah Konstitusi sebagai sarana untuk menghindari adanya peraturan yang bertentangan dengan hak-hak dasar warganegara sebagaimana dijamin dalam konstitusi. DOI: 10.15408/jch.v4i1.3200

TAFSIR INDEPENDENSI KEKUASAAN KEHAKIMAN DALAM PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI / INTERPRETATION OF JUDICIAL POWER INDEPENDENCE IN CONSTITUTIONAL COURT DECISIONS

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 279
Author(s):  
Muh. Ridha Hakim
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Qualitative Method ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
Judicial Proceedings ◽  
The Law ◽  
Law And Justice

Artikel ini mengkaji mengenai independensi kekuasaan kehakiman yang ditinjau dari Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Independensi kekuasaan kehakiman merupakan keharusan dalam sebuah negara hukum (rechtstaat). Negara  hukum baik dalam konsep Rule of Law ataupun Rechtstaat, menempatkan peradilan yang bebas dan tidak  memihak  (independence and impartiality of judiciary) sebagai salah satu cirinya. Akan tetapi, kemerdekaan tersebut bukanlah tanpa batasan sehingga dapat diterjemahkan dengan seluas-luasnya. Sering kali dalam praktiknya independensi didalilkan untuk berlindung atas suatu perbuatan yang tidak dapat dipertanggungjawabkan. Oleh karenanya, perlu dilakukan penggalian makna independensi kekuasaan kehakiman sebagaimana amanat Pasal 24 ayat (1) Undang-Undang Dasar 1945. Pasal 24 ayat (1) Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 menyatakan bahwa “kekuasaan kehakiman merupakan kekuasaan yang merdeka untuk menyelenggarakan peradilan guna menegakkan hukum dan keadilan”. Oleh karenanya, pertimbangan dari Mahkamah Konstitusi terkait putusan-putusan yang menjadikan Pasal 24 ayat (1) Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 sebagai batu uji dalam pengujian undang-undang layak untuk dikaji dan diangkat menjadi tafsiran mengenai makna independensi kekuasaan kehakiman. Tulisan ini menggali pandangan hakim dalam putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi yang memuat pertimbangan mengenai independensi kekuasaan kehakiman. Penulisan menggunakan metode yuridis normatif melalui pendekatan konseptual (conceptual approach) dan pendekatan kasus (case approach). Tulisan ini menggunakan data sekunder dengan bahan hukum primernya adalah Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Data dianalisis menggunakan metode kualitatif.This article examines the independence of judiciary by reviewing the Constitutional Court Decisions. Independence of judiciary is an absolute fact in a state of law (rechtstaat). A state of law, in the concept of Rule of Law or Rechtstaat, lists independence and impartiality of judiciary as one of its characteristics. However,  independence is not as free as everybody can freely interpret the law. Often, in practice, independence is postulated so as to provide protection from an act that cannot be accounted for. Therefore, it is necessary to delve into the meaning of judicial power independency as mandated by Article 24 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. Article 24 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution states that “judicial power is an independent power to administer judicial proceedings to enforce the law and justice”. For that reason, it is reasonable that the Constitutional Court’s reasoning in relation to the decisions that render Article 24 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution a touchstone in the judicial review of the laws be investigated and regarded as an interpretation of the meaning of judicial power independence. This paper studies the views of the judges in the Constitutional Court decisions that contain the court’s reasoning regarding the judicial power independence. This paper was written by employing a juridical-normative method through a conceptual approach and a case approach. This paper uses secondary data with the Constitutional Court Decisions as the primary legal materials. The data were analyzed using a qualitative method.

A New Basis for Judicial Review in Iraq

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-37
Author(s):  
Oday Talal Mahmood
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
The Other ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Democracy ◽  
The Core ◽  
The Law ◽  
Federal Supreme

Abstract Article 2 of the Iraqi Constitution of 2005, which states that Iraq is a modern Islamic constitutional democracy, contains a ‘repugnancy clause’, prohibiting enactment of any law contrary to Islam’s settled rulings, principles of democracy, and rights guaranteed in the Constitution. This clause allows the Constitutional Court to invalidate laws that violate the Constitution. Currently, the Iraqi Federal Supreme Court’s method for determining whether a particular law is repugnant to the Constitution and Islamic settled rulings as per Article 2 is inconsistent and arbitrary. Here the core question is: What is the best way to successfully implement the Iraqi Constitution’s Repugnancy Clause? We propose an approach focusing on maqāṣid, the classical Islamic concept meaning Sharīʿah’s intent, purpose, or objectives that will also fulfil the other purposes of Article 2 to ensure that the law is consistent with the principles of democracy and the principles of human rights.

scholarly journals KEABSAHAN ALAT BUKTI ELEKTRONIK PASCA PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI NO.20/PUU-XVI/2016 DALAM PRESPEKTIF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 677
Author(s):  
Erma Lisnawati
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Justice System ◽  
The State ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Electronic Evidence ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Electronic Transactions ◽  
Article 5

Indonesia is a state of law that upholds of human rights. In the state of law, there is a human rights protection by the state including the privacy of rights. It is referred judicial review of Act No. 11 of 2008 on Information and Electronic Transactions, of Article 5 Paragraph (2). To protect the privacy of recording and wiretapping conducted illegally. The Constitutional Court has been issued a ruling of the Constitutional Court No.20/PUU-XVI/2016 which imposes limits on how electronic evidence retrieval and also who is allowed to submit as an evidence in court. The court ruling was appropriate given the absence of norms regulating the procedures for the acquisition and delivery of electronic evidence. In a special lex such as criminal acts Corruption, Money Laundering and Terrorism Crime and Crime and Electronic Information only governs the kinds of electronic evidence alone, as well as the Code of Criminal Law.Indonesia adalah Negara hukum yang menjunjung tinggi hak asasi manusia. dalam Negara hukum, ada perlindungan hak asasi manusia oleh Negara, termasuk hak pribadi. Undang-undang Nomor 11 tahun 2008 tentang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektrokni, Pasal 5 Ayat (2) telah diajukan judisial review pada Mahkamah Konstitusi. Mahkamah Konstitusi telah mengeluarkan putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 20/PUU-XVI/2016, yang memberikan batasan tentang cara pengambilan alat bukti elektronik yang diperkenankan untuk diajukan dalam proses persidangan. Hal ini, sudah tepat mengingat tidak adanya norma yang mengatur tentang cara perolehan alat bukti elektronik dan siapa yang berhak mengajukan alat bukti elektronik tersebut ke pengadilan. Dalam beberapa undang-undang khusus pedoman tentang alat bukti elektronik hanya mengatur mengenai tindak pidana khusus saja seperti pada Tindak Pidana Korupsi, Tindak Pidana Pencucian Uang, Tindak Pidana Terorisme dan Tindak Pidana Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik.

scholarly journals Politik Hukum Kekuasaan Kehakiman Di Indonesia

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Wira Paskah Withyanti
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Power ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Independent State ◽  
State Laws ◽  
Political Dynamics ◽  
Independent Judiciary ◽  
Democratic State ◽  
The Law ◽  
Law And Justice ◽  
The Republic

Along with the continued development of the political dynamics that occurred during the founding of the Republic of Indonesia has a significant impact on the survival and growth of judicial power. Initial ideas of placing the judicial authorities and the independent judiciary free from interference by other branches of power have a long history. In carrying out the duties of a judge must be able to manage skills and as an upholder of justice professional, kind and reliable. Since this is an important prerequisite. Because of the ebb and flow of political dynamics in Indonesia that today is a democratic state. Where Indonesia recently found his form when the reform introduced in 1998. A new independent judicial power can be realized in a more noticeable when the Suharto regime fell, and then transforms the Law No. 40 of 1970, and then followed by a change to the provisions of Article 24 of the Constitution of 1945. Political law is closely related to the judicial authorities and the judiciary is independent state authority to conduct judiciary, enforcing the law, and justice based on Pancasila, for the implementation of state laws in the Republic of Indonesia. Implementation of judicial power carried by a Supreme Court and judicial bodies underneath, which is the general courts, religious courts, military courts, administrative courts, and a Constitutional Court. Judicial power in Indonesia is an independent and independent authority charged with adjudicating and enforcing law and justice based on Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution.

CIVIL AND LEGAL LIABILITY OF JUDGES

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yaroslav Skoromnyy ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Pension System ◽  
Legal Liability ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Model Code ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

The article presents the conceptual foundations of bringing judges to civil and legal liability. It was found that the civil and legal liability of judges is one of the types of legal liability of judges. It is determined that the legislation of Ukraine provides for a clearly delineated list of the main cases (grounds) for which the state is liable for damages for damage caused to a legal entity and an individual by illegal actions of a judge as a result of the administration of justice. It has been proved that bringing judges to civil and legal liability, in particular on the basis of the right of recourse, provides for the payment of just compensation in accordance with the decision of the European Court of Human Rights. It was established that the bringing of judges to civil and legal liability in Ukraine is regulated by such legislative documents as the Constitution of Ukraine, the Civil Code of Ukraine, the Explanatory Note to the European Charter on the Status of Judges (Model Code), the Law of Ukraine «On the Judicial System and the Status of Judges», the Law of Ukraine «On the procedure for compensation for harm caused to a citizen by illegal actions of bodies carrying out operational-search activities, pre-trial investigation bodies, prosecutors and courts», Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in the case on the constitutional submission of the Supreme Court of Ukraine regarding the compliance of the Constitution of Ukraine (constitutionality) of certain provisions of Article 2, paragraph two of clause II «Final and transitional provisions» of the Law of Ukraine «On measures to legislatively ensure the reform of the pension system», Article 138 of the Law of Ukraine «On the judicial system and the status of judges» (the case on changes in the conditions for the payment of pensions and monthly living known salaries of judges lagging behind in these), the Law of Ukraine «On the implementation of decisions and the application of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights».

Quasi-constitutional court of human rights for Europe? Comments on Geir Ulfstein

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 175-185
Author(s):  
WOJCIECH SADURSKI
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Reason ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Short Comment

AbstractThis short comment offers two additional arguments, missing from Geir Ulfstein’s account, which may bolster the case for constitutionalisation of the ECtHR. The first is about the ‘pilot judgments’ through which the Court addresses systemic deficits in national legal systems and thus ensures a minimal synchronisation of human rights protection throughout the CoE system. The second manifestation of constitutionalisation of the ECHR system is the increasing role of the ECtHR in the implementation of its own judgments. Ultimately, the legitimacy for the constitutional ambitions of Strasbourg Court should be located primarily in the argumentative resources of the court and in its pursuit of ‘public reason’.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document