scholarly journals HAK ANGKET DEWAN PERWAKILAN RAKYAT REPUBLIK INDONESIA (DPR RI) TERHADAP KOMISI PEMBERANTASAN KORUPSI (KPK)

Asy-Syari ah ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-202
Author(s):  
Dasep Muhammad Firdaus
Keyword(s):  
Human Resources ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Government Policies ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Institutional Authority ◽  
Balance Principle ◽  
Democratic State ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right

AbstractIndonesia as a constitutional and democratic state has three governmental branches which are executive, legislative and judicial power; and executed on the check and balance principle. One of the check and balance principles implementation can be seen in the House of Representatives of Indonesia (DPR)’s Parliamentary Scrutiny function which is mandated by the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD 1945), the right of inquiry to investigate all forms of implementation of laws and government policies that are allegedly contrary to the legislation. Recently the rights had been applied to evaluate KPK (corruption eradication commission) as an independent institution and free from any authority. Substantially the inquiry right was applied to evaluate KPK regarding the following aspects: institutional, authority, human resources, and expenditure budgets. Through legal tracing on related laws and regulations, that were descriptively analyzed regarding the DPR's inquiry right implementation towards KPK; it was found the DPR's inquiry rights to the KPK is constitutionally regulated in Article 20A of the UUD 1945, Law Number 17 of 2014 Article 79 paragraph (1), (2) and (3) and Constitutional Court Decision Case No. 36 and 37 / PUU-XV / 2017. Based on those regulations, DPR has rights to ask for KPK’s accountability upon their duties and authority and KPK is obliged to respect and implement DPR recommendations produced from the inquiry rights.Keywords:People’s Representative Council, Rights of Inquiry, Corruption Eradication Commission AbstrakIndonesia sebagai negara demokrasi kontitusional terdiri dari cabang kekuasaan eksekutif, legislatif, dan yudikatif berdasar prinsip check and balance. Wujud prinsip tersebut ada dalam ketatanegaraan Indonesia terlihat pada fungsi pengawasan DPR RI yang diamanatkan oleh UUD NRI Tahun 1945, antara lain melalui hak angket untuk menyelidiki segala bentuk pelaksanaan UU maupun kebijakan pemerintah yang diduga bertentangan dengan peraturan perundang-undangan. Salah satunya adalah hak angket yang ditujukan terhadap KPK sebagai lembaga bersifat independen dan bebas dari kekuasaan manapun. Secara subtantif pelaksanaan hak dilakukan untuk mengevaluasi KPK dari sisi kelembagan, kewenangan, sumber daya manusia hingga anggaran belanja. Melalui penelusuran peraturan perundang-undangan yang dianalisis secara deskriptif atas hak angket DPR terhadap KPK; ditemukan bahwa landasan hukum hak angket DPR terhadap KPK secara konstitusional diatur di dalam Pasal 20A UUD NKRI Tahun 1945, Undang-Undang Nomor 17 Tahun 2014 Pasal 79 ayat (1), (2) dan (3) dan Putusan MK No. Perkara 36 dan 37/PUU-XV/2017 . Atas dasar ketentuan tersebut, DPR berhak meminta pertanggungjawaban pelaksanaan tugas dan kewenangan KPK dan KPK sebagai lembaga penegak hukum harus menghormati dan melaksanakan rekomendasi yang telah dihasilkan pansus angket dan.Kata Kunci:DPR, Hak Angket, KPK

scholarly journals DISKURSUS SOSIOLOGI PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI NOMOR 46/PUU-VIII/2010

2021 ◽  
pp. 236-246
Author(s):  
Dwi Sakti Muhamad Huda ◽  
Dodi Alaska Ahmad Syaiful ◽  
Desi Wahyuni
Keyword(s):  
Legal Protection ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Reason ◽  
Kinship System ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right ◽  
Sociological Discourse ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Broad Scale

The Constitutional Court Decision Number 46 / PUU-VIII / 2010 annulled the provisions of Article 43 paragraph (1) of the Marriage Law because it contradicts the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and does not have binding legal force. The legal reason behind the rechtfinding is to emphasize that children born outside of marriage have the right to legal protection. This research was conducted with the aim of knowing the impact of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 46 / PUU-VIII / 2010 on one of the judges' judicial duties. This study uses a socio-legal approach with data collection techniques for study documents of literature materials. Based on the results of the analysis of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 46 / PUU-VIII / 2010, it does not contradict and intersect with the sociological discourse in accordance with the argumentum a contrario method. Then have coherence between the parental or bilateral kinship system with the Constitutional Court Decision No. 46 / PUU-VIII / 2010 in its application in Indonesia. This condition demands the intellectuality of Judges who are required to think on a broad scale and consider other disciplines in their legal findings.

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 BATASAN TERHADAP IMUNITAS ADVOKAT YANG DIPERLUAS BERDASARKAN PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI NOMOR 26/PUU-XI/2013

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 38-48
Author(s):  
Oey Valentino Winata ◽  
Wisnu Aryo Dewanto
Keyword(s):  
Code Of Ethics ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Professional Code ◽  
Court Proceedings ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right

The basis for granting immunity to advocates is in Article 16 of Law No. 18 of 2003, that advocates cannot be prosecuted both civil and criminal in carrying out their professional duties in good faith in the interests of the Client's defense in court proceedings. The immunity obtained by advocates is not only within the scope of the court, but also protects it outside the court. The immunity has been expanded based on the Constitutional Court Decision Number 26 / PUU-XI / 2013. The granting of immunity to such advocates is considered as an act that violates the provisions of Article 28 D of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, that everyone has the right to recognition, guarantee protection and fair legal certainty and equal treatment before the law. However, the right to immunity from lawsuits (immunity) to advocates does not conflict with Article 28D of the 1945 Constitution if given with limitations to advocates who are one of law enforcers in Indonesia, these restrictions apply both outside and in court proceedings. The limitation is in the form of a professional code of ethics and legislation, as well as good faith. Any action that goes beyond or beyond these three limits cannot be protected by immunity, so that if one of the three limits is exceeded, advocates can be legally processed and sentenced based on applicable regulations.Dasar pemberian imunitas kepada advokat ada pada Pasal 16 UU No. 18 Tahun 2003, bahwa advokat tidak dapat dituntut baik secara perdata maupun pidana dalam menjalankan tugas profesinya dengan iktikad baik untuk kepentingan pembelaan Klien dalam sidang pengadilan. Imunitas yang didapatkan advokat ternyata tidak hanya dalam lingkup pengadilan, tetapi juga melindunginya diluar pengadilan. Imunitas tersebut telah diperluas berdasarkan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 26/PUU-XI/2013. Pemberian imunitas kepada advokat tersebut dianggap sebagai suatu perbuatan yang melanggar ketentuan Pasal 28D Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia 1945, bahwa setiap orang berhak atas pengakuan, jaminan perlindungan dan kepastian hukum yang adil serta perlakuan yang sama dihadapan hukum. Tetapi hak atas kekebalan dari tuntutan hukum (imunitas) kepada advokat tersebut menjadi tidak bertentangan dengan Pasal 28D UUD 1945 apabila diberikan dengan batasan-batasan kepada advokat yang merupakan salah satu penegak hukum di Indonesia, batasan tersebut berlaku baik di luar maupun di dalam sidang pengadilan. Batasan tersebut berupa kode etik profesi dan peraturan perundang-undangan, serta iktikad baik. Setiap tindakan yang melampaui atau diluar ketiga batasan tersebut, tidak bisa dilindungi oleh imunitas, sehingga atas dilampauinya salah satu dari ketiga batasan tersebut maka advokat dapat diproses secara hukum dan dijatuhi hukuman berdasarkan peraturan yang berlaku.

ZINA DAN GERAKAN LGBT: QUO VADIS KEBIJAKAN HUKUM PIDANA (PENAL POLICY) DALAM PENYELAMATAN MORALITAS BANGSA (Anotasi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 26/PUUXIV/2016) / ADULTERY AND LGBT MOVEMENT: QUO VADIS PENAL POLICY FOR SAVING MORAL NATIONS (Annotation of Constitutional Court Decision Number 26/PUUXIV/2016)

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 263
Author(s):  
Jazim Hamidi ◽  
Lukman Nur Hakim
Keyword(s):  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Penal Policy ◽  
The Public ◽  
Immoral Behavior ◽  
Bisexual And Transgender ◽  
Quo Vadis ◽  
The Right ◽  
Lgbt Movement

Lesbian, Gay, Biseksual, dan Transgender sudah menjadi sebuah gerakan berbahaya, akan tetapi belum ada norma hukum yang mengatur tentang perilaku asusila tersebut, Pentingnya sanksi terhadap pelaku zina dan LGBT merupakan bentuk ketegasan negara dalam melindungi moral dan ideologi Nusantara dari faham berbahaya, akan tetapi Mahkamah Konstitusi menolak Permohonan tersebut karena pemidanaan pelaku zina, baik strafsoort maupun strafmaat, dan perilaku asusila lesbian, gay, biseksual, dan transgender memerlukan pembentukan norma baru, sehinggga menjadi Kebijakan hukum pidana (Penal policy). Kewenangan tersebut bukan merupakan kewenangan Mahkamah Konstitusi, akan tetapi menjadi hak Pembentuk Undang-Undang yaitu DPR bersama Presiden. Tulisan ini merupakan Anotasi atas Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 26/PUUXIV/2016 yang memberikan penjelasan kepada masyarakat adanya Quo Vadis Kebijakan hukum pidana (Penal policy) dalam putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi tersebut.Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender are becoming a dangerous movement, yet there is no legal norm governing this immoral behavior. The sanctions importance towards adultery and LGBT perpetrators is a form of state assertiveness in the conservation of the moral and ideology from dangerous movement. Meanwhile, the Constitutional Court rejected the request by the argumentation which is that punishment of adultery, both strafsoort and strafmaat, and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender needs a new norm to a penal policy. The authority is not the authority of the Constitutional Court, but it is the right of the Acting Legislator, namely the House of Representatives together with the President. This paper is an Annotation of Open Law Policy of Constitutional Court Decision 26 / PUUXIV / 2016 that provides an explanation to the public about Quo Vadis of Open law policy in the Constitutional Court decision.

scholarly journals TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS PROTECTION OF EMPLOYMENT (TUPE) DALAM PERJANJIAN OUTSOURCING

Media Iuris ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 335
Author(s):  
Muhammad Johar Fathoni
Keyword(s):  
Service Provider ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Employment Service ◽  
Labor Agreement ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right

Transfer of Undertaking Protection of Employment Based on Constitutional Court Decision Number 27/PUU-IX/2011, there are two models that must be fulfilled in outsourcing agreement, that is First, by requiring for agreement between worker and company conducting work outsourcing does not take the form of a certain time labor agreement (PKWT), but is in the form of an indefinite time agreement (PKWTT). The consequences of termination of contract for the Employment Service Provider who laid off his employees for the law, the employer shall be entitled to grant the right to his employees in accordance with the Manpower Act, Kepmenaker No. Kep. 150/Men/2000 on the Settlement of Termination of Employment and Stipulation of Severance, Money of Work and Indemnification. Then the government also stipulates the Decree of the Minister of Manpower and Transmigration of the Republic of Indonesia no. Kep. 76/Men/2001 on Amendment to several articles of Minister of Manpower Decree no. Kep. 150 / Men / 2000 on the Settlement of Termination of Employment and Stipulation of Severance, Money of Work and Indemnification at the Company.

scholarly journals Konsekuensi Yuridis Berlakunya Perjanjian Perkawinan Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 69/PUU-XIII/2015

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 295
Author(s):  
Si Ngurah Ardhya ◽  
I Putu Windu Mertha Sujana
Keyword(s):  
Civil Law ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Way Of Life ◽  
Civil Registration ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right ◽  
Justifiable Reason ◽  
Husband And Wife

Philosophically PMK (Constitutional Court Decision) Nr. 69/PUU-XIII/2015 based on way of life, awareness, and legal ideals such as the mystical atmosphere and Indonesian Nation according Pancasila and The Constitutional of The Republic of Indonesia Article 28E Paragraph (2). Sociologically, based on legal needs society regarding the leniency when the marriage agreement was made that is the phenomenon of a husband and wife for some reason feels they needed to make a marriage agreement after the wedding day was held. Juridically, the issuance of PMK Nr. 69/PUU-XIII/2015 is not solely on the basis of unconstitutionality, but also on a conflict of norms between Article 29 Paragraph (1) of Act Nr.  Year 1974 with general provisions of the ageement in Book III Code of Civil Law. Referring to PMK No.69/PUU-XIII/2015 which was strengthened by Act Nr. 2 Year 2014, Notary has the right to ratified the marriage agreement into an authentic deed so that there is no justifiable reason for the Department of Population and Civil Registration and Office of Religious Affairs rejects the authentic nature of the deed which is validated bay notary. 

scholarly journals KEKUASAAN DEWAN PERWAKILAN RAKYAT DALAM PENGGUNAAN HAK ANGKET MENURUT UNDANG-UNDANG DASAR 1945

Solusi ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 303-316
Author(s):  
Evi Purnamawati
Keyword(s):  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Government Policies ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
State Institutions ◽  
Legislative Oversight ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right ◽  
Research Type

This study analyzes the power of the questionnaire rights of the House of Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia. The House of Representatives is a House of Representatives and holds the power to form laws. The House of Representatives has the functions of legislative and legislative oversight. This research uses research methods using the method of literature (ribarary research). Type of normative juridical research through approaching legislation and conceptual approach of the research results of the House of Representatives, which essentially has the power to form the current law, the power began to widen towards supervision and budget, actually with the oversight function of the House of Representatives (DPR) towards the executive in practice the meaning of the teaching of separation of powers began to shift, the teaching of separation of powers between state institutions must not intervene with one another. In carrying out its functions the DPR has the right of Interpellation which is the right to request information from the Government in handling Government policies that have an impact on the life of society and the state. In addition, the DPR has the Right to Question, namely the Right to Investigate Government policies that are alleged to be in conflict with laws and regulations and express opinions outside the institution. Members of the DPR have the right to submit draft laws, ask questions, submit proposals and opinions, defend themselves, the right of immunity, and the right to protocol. The recommendation of this research is that the writer suggests that the DPR should make the regulation on questionnaire rights clearer especially about the process of using the questionnaire right so that there is no multi-interpretation so that violations do not occur in the process of using the inquiry right.

scholarly journals Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi Menjadi Objek Hak Angket Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat (Analisis Yuridis Terhadap Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 36/PUU-XV/2017 Dan Undang-Undang MD3)

SASI ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 75
Author(s):  
Paman Nurlette
Keyword(s):  
House Of Representatives ◽  
State Institution ◽  
The State ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
State Budget ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right ◽  
Two Sides ◽  
System Today

The style of building our constitutional legal system today is very varied, it has implications for the shifting functions and rights of the State organs including the State organs of the Republic of Indonesia House of Representatives. To understand the conception of the functions and rights of the organs of the Republic of Indonesia Representative Council (DPR RI), it is seen as two sides of a coin (two sides of one coin). The DPR RI's inquiry right is a supervision that must be carried out on policies implemented by the executive. The KPK is an organ that is within the executive family, because it carries out investigations, investigations and prosecutions of corruption cases, such as those carried out by the Prosecutors' Office and the Police. Thus if the KPK is referred to as part of the judiciary. The task of investigation, investigation and prosecution is the task of the executive, not the legislative and judiciary. In addition, the KPK has been an institution that uses the State budget, so it should be overseen by the DPR. if the DPR cannot exercise the right to question the KPK on the grounds of independence. The reason is, it is not right to refuse the right to question the KPK. With the decision of the Constitutional Court (MK) in the main essence of the decision which positions the KPK in institutions that are in the realm of power, the executive for carrying out the task of investigation, investigation and prosecution in corruption, which is actually the same as the authority of the police and prosecutors. The KPK is a state institution that is within the executive power cluster, so the KPK can be the object of using the DPR's questionnaire right as the people's representative who carries out the supervisory function. But the use of the questionnaire right by the DPR cannot be applied in the case that the KPK is carrying out its investigative, investigative and prosecution tasks. This means that the KPK cannot be carried out while the KPK is carrying out its duties.

scholarly journals Outer Children Marriages Status After Constitutional Court Decision No: 46/PUU-VII/2010

Rechtsidee ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sri Budi Purwaningsih
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Science And Technology ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Relationship ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Illegitimate Children ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right

The decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia No.46/PUU-VIII / 2010 dated 17 February 2012, granted the judicial review of Article 43 (1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage by deciding that the article should read "Children who are born outside of marriage just had a civil relationship with her mother and her mother's family as well as with men as a father who can be proved based on science and technology and / or evidence, has blood ties according to law, including a civil relationship with his father's family". This Indonesian Constitutional Court's decision bring Juridical consequence that illegitimate children not only have a legal relationship with her mother, but also has a legal relationship with the father (biological) and his father's family, as long as it is proven with science and technology. The Constitutional Court's decision is a starting point in the legal protection of illegitimate children, namely the "right alignment" between the illegitimate child with the legitimate son. Illegitimate children have the rights to demand their civil rights toward their father (biological) as the same rights obtained by the legitimate son. How To Cite: Purwaningsih, S. (2016). Outer Children Marriages Status After Constitutional Court Decision No: 46/PUU-VII/2010. Rechtsidee, 1(1), 119-130. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.21070/jihr.v1i1.99

scholarly journals Dekonstruksi Hak Imunitas Anggota DPR Dalam Perspektif Equality Before The Law

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-45
Author(s):  
Supriyadi A Arief
Keyword(s):  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Normative Study ◽  
Second Amendment ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right

AbstractThe birth of the Constitutional Court Verdict No.16 / PUU-XVI / 2018 has implications for the authority of the Council of Honors (MKD) of the House Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia (DPR-RI) which was previously regulated in Article 2 of Act Number 2 of 2018 concerning the Second Amendment to Act Number 17 of 2018 concerning the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR), House of Representatives (DPR-RI), Regional Representative Council (DPRD), and Regional House of Representatives (DPD) (UU MD3). The problem in this study is First, how is the position of the right to immunity of members of the house of representatives in the perspective of equality before the law?. Second, how is the implication of the Constitutional Court No.16/PUU-XVI/2018 releated to the MKD (Council Honorary Court)?. This research is a normative study using a legislative approach, a historical apporach, and a case approach. The results of the study show that right of immunity of the DPR members not contradicting the principle of equality before the law as long as the meaning of the right of immunity does not cover the total immunity of the members of the DPR as citizens in general. In addition, the right of immunity only relates to the functions and authority and duties of the DPR. The verdict of the Constitutional Court No.16/PUU-XVI/2018 has implications on two things, the abolition of MKD authority in giving preliminary considerations before the Presidents written permission is born, as well as an agreement to call and request information from DPR Members in relations to criminal acts only through the Presidents permission.Keywords: House of Representatives, Constitutional Court, Equality Before The Law, RightOf Immunity.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document