The Newly Established Constitutional Court in Post-Status Kosovo: Selected Institutional and Procedural Concerns

2010 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 129-158 ◽  
Author(s):  
Visar Morina
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Complex Nature ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Controversial Issues ◽  
Constitutional Democracy ◽  
Constitutional Review ◽  
Lively Debate ◽  
Procedural Concerns ◽  
Constitutional System ◽  
The Right

AbstractIn this article, the author first looks at recent constitutional developments in post-status Kosovo by providing an overview of Kosovo's constitutional system from the perspective of both the Constitution and the Comprehensive Proposal for the Kosovo Status Settlement prepared by UN Special Envoy Martti Ahtisaari. The author then explores the foundations of the constitutional review in Kosovo and provides an overview of the process pertaining to the establishment of the 2008 Constitutional Court in Kosovo. After analyzing organizational and jurisdiction-related matters of the Court, the article addresses selected procedural concerns that triggered a lively debate among the framers of the Constitutional Court Act. In particular, the author addresses the right of judges to attach dissenting opinions and whether the publication of such opinions is appropriate in the context of this newly born constitutional democracy. Finally, the author concludes that the lack of a tradition of judicial review and the complex nature of certain morally or politically controversial issues related to finding a constitutional compromise—satisfying both the Settlement and the Constitution—will inevitably make the mission of the Court a very challenging one.

scholarly journals Filling the Hole in Indonesia’s Constitutional System: Constitutional Courts and the Review of Regulations in a Split Jurisdiction

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 27
Author(s):  
Tim Lindsey
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Constitutional Review ◽  
The Real ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional System ◽  
Do So

The Indonesian constitutional system contains a serious flaw that means that the constitutionality of a large number of laws cannot be determined by any court. Although the jurisdiction for the judicial review of laws is split between the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court, neither can review the constitutionality of subordinate regulations. This is problematic because in Indonesia the real substance of statutes is often found in implementing regulations, of which there are very many. This paper argues that that is open to the Constitutional Court to reconsider its position on review of regulations in order to remedy this problem. It could do so by interpreting its power of judicial review of statutes to extend to laws below the level of statutes. The paper begins with a brief account of how Indonesia came to have a system of judicial constitutional review that is restricted to statutes. It then examines the experience of South Korea’s Constitutional Court, a court in an Asian civil law country with a split jurisdiction for judicial review of laws like Indonesia’s. Despite controversy, this court has been able to interpret its powers to constitutionally invalidate statutes in such a way as to extend them to subordinate regulations as well. This paper argues that Indonesia’s Constitutional Court should follow South Korea’s example, in order to prevent the possibility of constitutionalism being subverted by unconstitutional subordinate regulations.

scholarly journals Tinjauan Yuridis Putusan Constitutional Review Mahkamah Konstitusi Tentang Hak Mantan Narapidana Untuk Menjadi Pejabat Publik Yang Dipilih

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nanang Nur Wahyudi ◽  
Nynda Fatmawati Octarina
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Universal Declaration ◽  
The Political ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Constitutional Review ◽  
Civil And Political Rights ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right

Hak Politik dilindungi hukum, baik secara internasional maupun nsional. secara internasional, hak politik diatur Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) dan International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). hak politik juga dilindungi konsitusi kita dan beberapa peraturan Perundang-Undangan lainnya, serutama Undang-Undang no 39 tahun 1999 tentang Hak Asasi Manusia. Adanya ketentuan yang merupakan syarat untuk mencalonkan diri pada pemilihan yang jelas membatasi bahkan meniadakan hak seseorang untuk ikut serta dalam menggunakan hak azasinya. Hal ini jelas merupakan pelanggaran terhadap hak azasi seseorang, yang dalam hal ini hak politik yang dimiliki oleh seorang mantan narapidana khususnya pada kasus korupsi. Apabila kita mencermati ketentuan UUD 1945, maka seorang mantan narapidana juga sebagai warga negara yang memiliki hak politik yang sama dengan warga negara lainnya. Hak Uji materiel terhadap peraturan yang  bertentangan dengan Undang-Undang Dasar 1945, maka kewenangan hak menguji ada pada Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK). Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi memberi kepastian hukum bahwa seorang mantan Narapidana kasus korupsi masih diperbolehkan untuk mencalonkan diri pada pemilihan kepala daerah karena mantan narapidana masih memiliki hak politik sebagai warga negara. Untuk dapat mencalonkan diri pada pemilihan kepala daerah, maka mantan narapidana setelah melewati masa 5 (lima) tahun  selesai menjalani masa hukuman dan telah kembali kepada kehidupan masyarakat sebagaimana kehidupan masyarakat lainnya. Menghormati hak politik mantan narapidana kasus korupsi sebagai pengakuan terhadap hak azasi manusia dalam negara Republik Indonesia yang merupakan hak konstitusional yang diatur dalam UUD Tahun 1945. Kata Kunci : Narapidana, Judisial Review, Hak, Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi ABSTRACTPolitical rights are protected by law, both internationally and nationally. Internationally, political rights are regulated by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Political rights are also protected by our constitution and several other laws and regulations, especially Law No. 39 of 1999 concerning Human Rights. There is a provision which is a requirement to run for election which clearly limits and even negates a person's right to participate in exercising their human rights. This is clearly a violation of a person's human rights, which in this case the political rights of an ex-convict, especially in cases of corruption. If we look at the provisions of the 1945 Constitution, an ex-convict is also a citizen who has the same political rights as other citizens. The right to judicial review of regulations that are contrary to the 1945 Constitution, the authority of the right to examine lies with the Constitutional Court (MK). The Constitutional Court's decision provides legal certainty that a former convict in a corruption case is still allowed to run for regional head elections because ex-convicts still have political rights as citizens. To be able to run for regional head elections, ex-convicts after passing through a period of 5 (five) years have finished serving their sentence and have returned to community life as other people's lives. Respect the political rights of ex-convicts of corruption cases as an acknowledgment of human rights in the Republic of Indonesia which are constitutional rights regulated in the 1945 Constitution. Keywords: Prisoners, Judicial Review, Rights, Constitutional Court Decisions

Amendment of the Contravention Code or Defiance of the Constitution by the Exceptional Situations Commission?

2021 ◽  
pp. 56-65
Author(s):  
Iulian Rusanovschi ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
The State ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
State Of Emergency ◽  
Constitutional Review ◽  
Republic Of Moldova ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right ◽  
Epidemiological Situation

On 17.03.2020, the Parliament declared a state of emergency on the entire territory of the Republic of Moldova for the period March 17 - May 15, 2020. By the same Decision, the Parliament delegated the Commission for Exceptional Situations with the right to implement a series of measures to overcome the epidemiological situation in the country. However, in the conditions of a functioning Parliament and despite the clear and exhaustive texts of the Constitution, the Commission for Exceptional Situations amended during the state of emergency the Contravention Code, which is an organic law. The amendments specifically concerned the procedure and terms for examining infringement cases brought in connection with non-compliance with the measures adopted by the Commission for Exceptional Situations and the Extraordinary Commission for Public Health. In the conditions in which an organic law can be modified only by the Parliament, it is obvious the unconstitutionality, at least partial, of the Disposition no. 4 of 24.03.2020 of the Commission for Exceptional Situations, but unfortunately, the Constitutional Court is not mandated with the right to submit to constitutional review the normative acts adopted by the Commission for Exceptional Situations. Under these conditions, the state is obliged to identify solutions in order not to allow an authority to adopt unconstitutional normative acts that cannot be subject to constitutional review.

scholarly journals Tribunal Constitucional y proceso secesionista catalán: respuestas jurídico-constitucionales a un conflicto político-constitucional

2016 ◽  
pp. 561 ◽  
Author(s):  
Josep M.ª Castellá Andreu
Keyword(s):  
Constitutional Amendment ◽  
The Political ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Title V ◽  
Participatory Process ◽  
Constitutional Democracy ◽  
Spanish Constitution ◽  
The Right

En este estudio se pasa revista a las cinco sentencias dictadas por el Tribunal Constitucional entre 2014 y 2015 en relación con el proceso secesionista iniciado en Cataluña en 2012. Buena parte de las impugnaciones siguen el procedimiento del artículo 161 CE y Título V LOTC y versan unas sobre la constitucionalidad de dos resoluciones aprobadas por el Parlamento de Cataluña en las que se plantea el derecho a decidir, el carácter soberano del pueblo de Cataluña y el inicio del proceso político y de un proceso constituyente, y las otras sobre la regulación y aplicación de los instrumentos para llevar a cabo el proceso secesionista seguido hasta ahora: una llamada consulta popular no referendaria y un proceso de participación ciudadana. Las sentencias advierten contradicciones con la Constitución de las normas y actos impugnados tanto de carácter sustantivo como de orden competencial. Para el Tribunal la reforma constitucional es ineludible a la hora de afrontar el proceso secesionista con respeto al ordenamiento jurídico. Se concluye que el Tribunal en las diferentes sentencias emitidas otorga distinta relevancia a las exigencias de la democracia pluralista y a las de la democracia constitucional.The essay deals with the five rulings dictated by the Constitutional Court in 2014-15 in relation with the secessionist process started in Catalonia in 2012. Most of the cases follow the procedure of section 161.2 Spanish Constitution and Title V of the Organic Law of the Constitutional Court. They are focused on i) the constitutionality of two resolutions passed by the Catalan Parliament on the right to decide, the sovereignty of Catalan people and the beginning of the political and constituent processes and ii) the regulation and exercise of the instruments to reach the secessionist process followed until now: a so-called popular consultation without referendum and a participatory process. The rulings take into account the contradiction of the norms and acts contested with the Constitution, in both substantive and allocation of powers perspectives. For the Court the constitutional amendment is ineluctable to confront the secessionist process. We conclude that the Constitutional Court assumes in the different rulings differently the obligations of a pluralist and of a constitutional democracy.

scholarly journals Menyoal Kebebasan Beragama dan Penodaan Agama Di Indonesia

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 195-212
Author(s):  
Yayan Sopyan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Religious Beliefs ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Reform Era ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right

Abstract: Questioning the Religious Freedom and blasphemy in Indonesia. The presence of the Constitutional Court in the reform era is the strengthening of the foundations of constitutionalism in the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia Year 1945. The Court in this case a role to enforce and the protector of the citizen's constitutional rights and the protector of the human rights. Including in this case, the right to religion and religious practices and teachings of their respective religions, in accordance with the constitutional mandate. However, on the other hand there is the discourse of freedom of expression and freedom of speech includes freedom to broadcast religious beliefs and understanding of the "deviant" and against the "mainstream" religious beliefs and understanding in general, as in the case of Ahmadiyah. The Court in this case is required to provide the best attitude when faced judicial review in this case still required in addition to guarding the constitution in order to run properly.   Abstrak: Menyoal Kebebasan Beragama dan Penodaan Agama di Indonesia. Kehadiran lembaga Mahkamah Konstitusi di era reformasi merupakan upaya penguatan terhadap dasar-dasar konstitusionalisme pada Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945. MK dalam hal ini berperan menegakkan dan melindungi hak-hak konstitusional warga negara (the protector of the citizen’s constitutional rights) dan pelindung HAM (the protector of the human rights). Termasuk dalam hal ini, hak untuk memeluk agama dan menjalankan ibadah serta ajaran agamanya masing-masing, sesuai dengan amanat konstitusi. Namun, disisi lain ada wacana kebebasan berekspresi dan kebebasan berpendapat termasuk didalamnya kebebasan untuk menyiarkan keyakinan dan pemahaman keagamaan yang “menyimpang” dan bertentangan dengan “mainstream” keyakinan dan pemahaman keagamaan pada umumnya, seperti dalam kasus Ahmadiyah. MK dalam hal ini dituntut untuk mampu memberikan sikap terbaik saat dihadapkan judicial review dalam kasus ini selain tetap dituntut untuk mengawal konstitusi agar dapat berjalan sebagaimana mestinya. DOI: 10.15408/jch.v2i2.2314

scholarly journals Penegakan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 13/PUU-XV/2017 Mengenai Hak Mendapatkan Pekerjaan dan Hak Membentuk Keluarga

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 858
Author(s):  
Muhammad Reza Winata ◽  
Intan Permata Putri
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Industrial Relations ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Contract ◽  
Legal Power ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right

Jaminan konstitusi terkait hak konstitusional untuk mendapatkan pekerjaan dalam Pasal 28D ayat (2) UUD NRI 1945 dan hak konstitusional untuk membentuk keluarga dalam Pasal 28B ayat (1) UUD 1945 telah dibatasi dengan adanya ketentuan Pasal 153 ayat (1) huruf f Undang-Undang No 13 Tahun 2003 tentang Ketenagakerjaan. Keberadaan perjanjian kerja menghalangi hak pekerja untuk menikah dalam satu institusi karena pekerja harus mengalami pemutusan hubungan kerja untuk dapat melaksanakan haknya membentuk keluarga yang sebenarnya dijamin dalam konstitusi dan peraturan perundang- undangan. Pengujian Pasal 153 ayat (1) huruf f UU No 13 Tahun 2003 dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 13/PUU-XV/2017 telah menyatakan frasa "kecuali telah diatur dalam perjanjian kerja, peraturan Perusahaan, atau perjanjian kerja bersama" bertentangan dengan UUD 1945. Artikel ini hendak menjawab kekuatan mengikat dan akibat hukum putusan, sekaligus Penegakan putusan dengan memetakan penyelesaian terkait peraturan perundang-undangan dan perjanjian kerja yang tidak tidak sesuai dengan putusan dan bertentangan dengan prinsip kebebasan berkontrak. Penelitian ini didasarkan pada penelitian kualitatif, dimana sumber analisis yakni Putusan MK terkait permasalahan yang diangkat, peraturan perundang-undangan, buku dan artikel ilmiah. Artikel ini hendak memetakan penyelesaian yang sesuai terkait kepada perjanjian kerja yang tidak menjamin hak pekerja yang dijamin dalam konstitusi, serta bertentangan dengan prinsip kebebasan berkontrak. yakni: pertama, penyelarasan peraturan perundang undangan di bawah Undang-undang judicial review di Mahkamah Agung, kedua, penyelesaian perselisihan hak melalui Pengadilan Hubungan Industrian yang akan menguji penegakan putusan dalam perjanjian kerja, peraturan perusahaan, atau perjanjian kerja bersama.The constitutional guarantee regarding constitutional rights to obtain employment in Article 28 D paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and the constitutional rights to form a family in Article 28 B paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution has been limited by the provisions of Article 153 paragraph (1) letter f Law No. 13 of 2003 concerning Labor. The existence of a work agreement prevents the right of workers to get married in one institution because workers must experience termination of employment to be able to exercise their rights to form a family which is actually guaranteed in the constitution and legislation. Testing Article 153 paragraph (1) letter f of Law No. 13 of 2003 in the Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 13/PUU-XV/2017 has stated the phrase "except as stipulated in work agreements, company regulations, or collective labor agreements" contrary to the 1945 Constitution. This article is about to answer the binding and consequent legal power of the decision, as well as Enforcement of decisions by mapping out solutions related to legislation and work agreements that are not incompatible with decisions and are contrary to the principle of freedom of contract. This research is based on qualitative research, where the source of analysis is the Constitutional Court Decision related to the issues raised, legislation, scientific books, and articles. This article intends to map appropriate solutions related to work agreements that do not guarantee workers’ rights guaranteed in the constitution, as well as contrary to the principle of freedom of contract. namely: first, alignment of legislation under the judicial review law in the Supreme Court, secondly, settlement of rights disputes through the Industrial Relations Court which will test enforcement of decisions in work agreements, company regulations, or collective labor agreements.

scholarly journals Konsistensi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam Pengujian Beberapa Undang-Undang Terkait Kesehatan

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 763
Author(s):  
Ade Irawan Taufik
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Paradigm Shift ◽  
Legal Rights ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Private Matter ◽  
The Right ◽  
Material Tests

 Timbulnya pengakuan kesehatan sebagai hak asasi menunjukan perubahan paradigma yang luar biasa, karena kesehatan tidak lagi dipandang hanya sebagai urusan pribadi namun sebagai bentuk tanggung jawab negara dan hak hukum (legal rights). Tujuan diberlakukannya berbagai undang-undang terkait kesehatan adalah untuk memberikan jaminan konstitusionalitas hak atas kesehatan, namun dengan diberlakukannya berbagai undang-undang tersebut tidak berarti terjaminnya hak konstitusional atas kesehatan, hal ini tergambar dengan banyaknya uji materi terhadap berbagai undang-undang tersebut. Banyaknya permohonan uji materi tersebut menarik untuk diteliti terhadap prinsip-prinsip atau asas-asas yang melandasi materi muatan berbagai undang-undang terkait kesehatan dan konsistensi antar putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK) dan konsistensi Putusan MK dengan prinsip atau asas yang melandasi materi muatan undang-undang terkait kesehatan. Dengan menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif disimpulkan bahwa prinsip-prinsip atau asas mempunyai arti penting sebagai landasan materi undang-undang sehingga dapat dijadikan sebagai batu uji dalam melakukan pengujian undang-undang. Kesimpulan lainnya yakni terdapat inkonsistensi antar putusan MK dan inkonsistensi putusan MK dengan prinsip atas asas yang melandasi materi muatan berbagai undang-undang terkait kesehatan.The emergence of the recognition of health as a human right shows an extraordinary paradigm shift, because health is no longer seen only as a private matter but as a form of state responsibility and legal rights. The purpose of the enactment of various laws related to health is to provide a constitutional guarantee of the right to health, however, the enactment of these various laws does not mean the guarantee of constitutional rights to health, this is showed by the number of judicial review of various laws. The number of requests for material tests is interesting to be examined on the principles that underlie the contents of various health related to laws and consistency between decisions of the Constitutional Court (MK) and consistency of decisions of the Constitutional Court to the principles that underlie the content of laws related to health. By using the normative juridical research method, it can be concluded that principles have an important meaning as a basis for the material of the law so that they can be used as a touchstone in conducting the testing of laws. Another conclusion is that there are inconsistencies between the Constitutional Court's decisions and the inconsistency of the Constitutional Court's decision to the principle on the basis of the material content of various laws related to health.

scholarly journals Authoritarian Dimension of Judicial Ideology of the Slovenian Constitutional Court

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 733-760
Author(s):  
Jernej Letnar Černič
Keyword(s):  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Individual Rights ◽  
Constitutional Democracy ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The Past ◽  
Judicial Ideology ◽  
Constitutional System ◽  
Independent Functioning

After the democratization and independence of Slovenia, the Constitutional Court has generated the paradigm reform in the Slovenian constitutional system by protecting individual rights against the heritage of the former system. The constitutional judges are not blank slates, but individuals embedded in their private and professional environments. In the past three decades, the Court has delivered several seminal decisions concerning the protection of the rule of law, human rights, and constitutional democracy. What motivates constitutional judges to protect individual rights in some cases and show preference for the preservation of authority and stability of the existing legal system in others? The article is based on the empirical research measuring the presence of judicial ideology at the Constitutional Court of Slovenia in three mandates (1993–1997, 2002–2006, 2011–2016). The methodological and theoretical model aims to measure economic, social, and authoritarian dimensions of judicial ideology (three-fold judicial ideology model). The research group has analysed the decisions and separate opinions of the Constitutional Court from selected periods based on hypotheses provided by the model. This article intends to present and analyse the research results concerning the authoritarian dimension of judicial ideology. More specifically, it examines the level of authoritarianism of the Slovenian Constitutional Court in its judicial decision-making during the three mentioned mandates. Through the obtained empirical results, the paper seeks to strengthen fair, impartial, and independent functioning of the Slovenian Constitutional Court and its respective judges.

scholarly journals URGENSI PEMBENTUKAN UNDANG-UNDANG HAK ANGKET DPR RI (THE URGENCY OF MAKING THE LAW ON THE RIGHT OF INQUIRY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA)

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 177-194
Author(s):  
Novianto Murthi Hantoro
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Current Regulation ◽  
Presidential System ◽  
Subject And Object ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right

Prior to the decision of the Constitutional Court (MK), the implementation of the right to inquiry was regulated in two laws, namely Law No. 6 of 1954 on the Establishment of the Rights of Inquiry of the House of Representatives (DPR) and Law No. 27 of 2009 on MPR, DPR, DPD, and DPRD. Through proposal for judicial review, MK decided the Law on the Rights of Inquiry was null and void because it was not in accordance with the presidential system adopted in the 1945 Constitution. Today, the exercise of the right of inquiry is only based on Law on MPR, DPR, DPD, and DPRD. Nonetheless, the Amendment of Law No. 27 of 2009 into Law No. 17 of 2014 could not accommodate some substances of the null and void Law on the Rights of Inquiry. The urgency of the formulation of the law on the right to inquiry, other than to carry out the Constitutional Court’s decision; are to close the justice gap of the current regulation; to avoid multi-interpretation of the norm, for example on the subject and object of the right of inquiry; and to execute the mandate of Article 20A paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution. The regulation on the right to inquiry shall be formulated separately from the Law on MPR, DPR, DPD and DPRD, with at least several substances to be discussed, namely: definition, mechanisms, and procedure, as well as examination of witnesses, expert, and documents. AbstrakSebelum adanya putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK), pelaksanaan hak angket diatur dalam dua undang-undang, yaitu Undang-Undang Nomor 6 Tahun 1954 tentang Penetapan Hak Angket DPR (UU Angket) dan Undang-Undang Nomor 27 Tahun 2009 tentang Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat, Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat, Dewan Perwakilan Daerah, dan Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah (UU MPR, DPR, DPD, dan DPRD). Melalui permohonan pengujian undang-undang, MK membatalkan keberlakuan UU Angket karena sudah tidak sesuai dengan sistem presidensial yang dianut dalam UUD 1945. Pelaksanaan hak angket saat ini hanya berdasarkan UU MPR, DPR, DPD, dan DPRD. Penggantian UU No. 27 Tahun 2009 menjadi UU No. 17 Tahun 2014 tentang MPR, DPR, DPD, dan DPRD ternyata tidak mengakomodasi beberapa substansi UU Angket yang telah dibatalkan. Berdasarkan hal tersebut, terdapat urgensi untuk membentuk Undang-Undang tentang Hak Angket DPR RI. Urgensi tersebut, selain sebagai tindak lanjut putusan MK, juga untuk menutup celah kekosongan hukum pada pengaturan saat ini dan untuk menghindari multi-interpretasi norma, misalnya terhadap subjek dan objek hak angket. Pengaturan mengenai hak angket perlu diatur di dalam undang-undang yang terpisah dari UU MPR, DPR, DPD, dan DPRD, dengan materi muatan yang berisi tentang pengertian-pengertian, mekanisme, dan hukum acara. Pembentukan Undang-Undang tentang Hak Angket diperlukan guna memenuhi amanat Pasal 20A ayat (4) UUD 1945.

scholarly journals Amicus Curiae e Audiências Públicas no Controle de Constitucionalidade Brasileiro

2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Oscar Valente Cardoso
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Amicus Curiae ◽  
Constitutional Review ◽  
Public Hearings

AMICUS CURIAE E AUDIÊNCIAS PÚBLICAS NO CONTROLE DE CONSTITUCIONALIDADE BRASILEIRO  AMICUS CURIAE AND PUBLIC HEARINGS ON BRAZILIAN CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW RESUMO: O artigo trata de dois institutos inseridos formalmente no controle abstrato de constitucionalidade brasileiro por meio da Lei nº 9.868/99: o amicus curiae e a análise de fatos. A abordagem é ao mesmo tempo teórica, com fundamento em doutrina nacional e estrangeira, e prática, com base na interpretação do Supremo Tribunal Federal. Enfatiza as diferenças existentes entre ambos e a ausência da distinção necessária em determinadas situações. Busca-se contribuir para a exata delimitação e aplicação de cada um, além de demonstrar que os dois institutos ampliam os meios processuais à disposição do Supremo Tribunal Federal no exercício de sua função de Tribunal Constitucional, porém, ainda não estão devidamente consolidados na prática da Corte. PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Controle de constitucionalidade; Amicus curiae; Audiências públicas. ABSTRACT: This article analyzes two institutes formally added to Brazilian abstract constitutional review through Act nº 9.868/99: Amicus Curiae and Fact Review. The approach is at the same time theoretical, based on national and foreign doctrine, and practical, based on the interpretation of the Supreme Federal Court. It emphasizes the differences between themselves and the lack of the necessary distinction in certain situations. It seeks to contribute for defining and implementing both institutes, in addition to demonstrating that the two institutes extend the procedural means available to the Supreme Federal Court in the exercise of its function as Constitutional Court, although they are not yet duly consolidated in the practice of the Court. KEYWORDS: Judicial review; Amicus curiae; Public hearings.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document