Idiosyncratic Constitutional Review in Cyprus: (Re-)Design, Survival and Kelsen

ICL Journal ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 473-496
Author(s):  
Constantinos Kombos
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Reform Initiative ◽  
Constitutional Design ◽  
Constitutional Review ◽  
The Law

Abstract The model of the Austrian Constitutional Court, with its Kelsenian origins, has been influential in the Cypriot constitutional context in a variety of intertwined and changing ways. The initial constitutional design followed the centralized and concentrated constitutional review by the Supreme Constitutional Court. The collapse of the bi-communal structure of the Cypriot system resulted in the application of the law of necessity and the establishment of a new Supreme Court with a simultaneous decentralization of constitutional review. At the time of writing a new reform initiative is underway, and the discussion about the Austrian model and Kelsen is revived. The continuous and varied influence from the Austrian prototype and interestingly the Kelsenian logic is assessed while recognizing the delicate idiosyncrasies of the Cypriot setting. The argument is that at neither stage the Austrian model was purely applied in Cyprus and the systemic adjustments were the result of improvisation rather than model adherence. This paper highlights the inconsistencies in the understanding of the Austrian model and explains the ‘modelling vertigo’.

scholarly journals Pengujian Peraturan Pemerintah Pengganti Undang-Undang

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali Marwan Hsb
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Government Regulation ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Form Of Government ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Republic

Article 24C Section (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia authorizes the Constitutional Court to reviewthe law against the constitution. However, when referring to the hierarchy of legislation, the law has the equal hierarchy with government regulation in lieu of law. It makes a question whether the Constitutional Court truly has the authority to review government regulation in lieu of law against the constitution? Based on the research in this paper, it was found that by the Constitutional Court Decision Number 138/PUU-VII/2009, the Constitutional Court stated that the authority to review government regulation in lieu of law under the authority of the Constitutional Court because the substance of government regulation in lieu of law is similar with the substance of law. So, the Constitutional Court has the authority to review a government regulation in lieu of law materially. Such decision is correct; the Constitutional Court has the authority to review a government regulation in lieu of law in material because the substance is similar with the law. While formally reviewing should be the authority of the Supreme Court due to government regulation in lieu of law formally is in the form of government regulation

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 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 Gagasan Pemberian Legal Standing Bagi Warga Negara Asing dalam Constitutional Review

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 752
Author(s):  
I Gede Yusa ◽  
Komang Pradnyana Sudibya ◽  
Nyoman Mas Aryani ◽  
Bagus Hermanto
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Approach ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Federal Republic Of Germany ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
Constitutional Review ◽  
Legal Standing ◽  
Legal Writing ◽  
The World ◽  
The Law

Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 2-3/PUU-V/2007, perihal pengujian Undang-Undang Nomor 22 Tahun 1997 tentang Narkotika diajukan oleh ketiga orang pelaku Bali Nine yang merupakan warga negara asing. Adapun Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam amar putusannya memutuskan bahwa permohonan pengujian yang diajukan oleh ketiga warga negara asing tersebut tidak dapat diterima (niet ontvankelijk verklaard), bahwa terhadap putusan ini terdapat dissenting opinion dari 4 (empat) orang Hakim Konstitusi berkaitan dengan kedudukan hukum (legal standing) pemohon berkewarganegaraan asing, yaitu Hakim Konstitusi Laica Marzuki, Achmad Roestandi, Harjono dan Maruarar Siahaan, yang pada intinya mengakui legal standing bagi ketiga warga negara asing tersebut. Dalam perspektif perbandingan, terdapat beberapa Mahkamah Konstitusi di dunia menerima permohonan constitutional review oleh warga negara asing, seperti halnya di Republik Ceko, Mongolia serta Republik Federal Jerman. Adapun tulisan ini bertujuan untuk menggagas pemberian legal standing bagi warga negara asing dalam permohonan constitutional review di Mahkamah Konstitusi. Adapun tulisan ini dibuat dengan menggunakan metode penulisan normatif dengan pendekatan studi konseptual, pendekatan perbandingan dan pendekatan perundang-undangan. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa pemberian legal standing bagi warga negara asing dalam permohonan constitutional review di Mahkamah Konstitusi ke dalam Undang-Undang Mahkamah Konstitusi dan Peraturan Mahkamah Konstitusi terkait dapat dilakukan dengan melihat perspektif hak asasi manusia dan negara hukum.After The Constitutional Court Decision Number 2-3/PUU-V/2007 regarding the constitutional review of The Law Number 22 Year 1997 about Narcotics lodged by the three Bali Nine case of which they are foreign citizens. Based on the Decision of the Constitutional Court, the application from them was unacceptable (niet van ontvankelijk verklaard), that toward this decision there are dissenting opinion of 4 (four) constitution judges related to the legal standing of foreign citizens in the applicantion, they are Laica Marzuki, Achmad Roestandi, Harjono and Maruarar Siahaan. In essence, they are admitting legal standing for them in the case. Seen from the perspective comparison, there are several of the world constitutional courts accepting the constitutional review by those foreign citizens, such as Czech Republic, Mongolia and Federal Republic of Germany. This paper aims to analyze the idea for granting the legal standing for foreign citizens applicant of constitutional review in the Constitutional Court. This paper is created by using the normative legal writing method with conceptual approach, comparative approach, and statute approach. Through this paper is expected to has the idea for granting the legal standing of foreign citizens on constitutional review in the Constitutional Court into the Law of Constitutional Court and the Regulation of Constitutional Court based on human rights perspective and the country of law.

scholarly journals PASANG SURUT HUBUNGAN ANTARA MAHKAMAH AGUNG DENGAN KOMISI YUDISIAL DALAM SISTEM KETATANEGARAAN REPUBLIK INDONESIA

2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammad Fauzan
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Relationship

The relationship between the Supreme Court by the Judicial Commission in the Republic of Indonesia system is not harmonious, this is due to the first, the disharmony between the law on judicial power, including the law on Judicial Power, the law on the Supreme Court, the law on Constitutional Court and the law on the Judicial Commission. Both of the leadership character that exist in the Supreme Court and the Judicial Commission were too emphasizes in ego that one sector feel more superior than the others. To create a harmonious relationship between Supreme Court and Judicial Commission can be done by establishing intensive communication between both of them and by improvement in legislation. Keywords : relation, Supreme Court, Judicial Commission   

scholarly journals Masalah Eksekutabilitas Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi oleh Mahkamah Agung

2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 171
Author(s):  
Budi Suhariyanto
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Reform ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Relationship Of

Normatively constitutional court and supreme of court has on equal position with a different authority. However, there is a relationship of authority and point of contact. Morever, potential to cause disharmony on law enforcement. For example, on implementation of the constitutional court’s decision directly followed by the decision of the supreme court but some others not. The constitutional court’s decision characteristic are final and binding general (erga omnes), at the same level with legislation (negatif legislator), undirectly binding and enforced by the supreme court. Fundamentally, judge at the supreme court and the courts below is not a mouthpiece of the law, therefore it has some authority to interpre the statute (was also againts the decision of the constitutional court) to be applied on cases they handle. Although the judges decision of the supreme court do not decide on the validity and constitutionality of the norm, but through the efforts of the discovery  or the interpretation of the law can gives an effect to the law enforcement and the establishment of a progressive and responsive legal reform.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document