scholarly journals Transformation of the Judiciary in Turkmenistan after 1991. Aspects of Development of Administrative Judiciary

2021 ◽  
pp. 44-56
Author(s):  
Roman Burenko
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Presidential Decree ◽  
Arbitration Procedure ◽  
Local Courts ◽  
The Republic

The article examines the process of formation of the Turkmen judicial system after Turkmenistan declared independence in 1991. The stages of reforming and transformation of the judicial system in the Republic of Turkmenistan in different periods are studied: 1990–2000, 2001–2020. In addition, the structure of the judicial system of Turkmenistan, the system of courts of general jurisdiction (regional courts and local courts), the system of arbitration courts, judicial boards of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Turkmenistan (in civil cases, arbitration cases, administrative cases, criminal cases) is analyzed, and the judicial selfgovernment bodies of the Republic of Turkmenistan are also investigated: the National Conference of Judges, the Qualification Board of Judges, the Council of People’s Assessors at district courts. In addition, the norms of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Turkmenistan, the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Republic of Turkmenistan and the Code of the Republic of Turkmenistan on Administrative Procedures on issues arising from administrative and public legal relations are analyzed. The article draws attention to the lack of functioning of the constitutional judicial system and the Constitutional Court in the Republic of Turkmenistan, as well as the need to establish constitutional control over normative acts of the legislative and executive branches of the republic in the country. It is proposed to establish administrative courts in Turkmenistan in all regional centres of the country and the capital of the republic, as well as to adopt the Code of Administrative Procedure of Turkmenistan in the country. The article draws attention to the fact that the creation or liquidation of arbitration, regional or local courts would be carried out not only on the basis of a Presidential Decree, but also on the basis of a proposal of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Turkmenistan with the consent of the Parliament of the Republic of Turkmenistan.

scholarly journals Tinjauan Yuridis Pengajuan Permohonan Peninjauan Kembali pada Perkara Pidana dalam Sistem Hukum Indonesia

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 99-105
Author(s):  
I Made Widi Adi Peremana ◽  
A. A. Sagung Laksmi Dewi ◽  
Ni Made Sukaryati Karma
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Library Research ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Circular Letter ◽  
The Republic

The study of this research is the submission of requests for reconsideration in criminal cases in the Indonesian legal system which became a polemic after the issuance of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 34 / XI-PUU / 2013 and Circular Letter of the Supreme Court (SEMA) Number 7 of 2014 concerning Submission of Reappeals in Cases Criminal. The research objectives to be achieved, in this case, are the regulation of legal reconsideration efforts in Indonesia and the procedure for submitting a request for review in the Indonesian system. Researchers use a normative juridical approach or library research or doctrinal legal research which can be interpreted as legal research by examining library materials and secondary materials. This study illustrates that the regulations for reconsideration in the legal system in Indonesia are based on various regulations, namely Law Number 8 of 1981 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code, Law No. 3 of 2009 concerning the Supreme Court, Law no. 48 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power, Circular Letter of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia No. 7 of 2014 concerning Review of Criminal Cases and Submission of Reconsiderations at this time refers to the provisions of the Circular Letter of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia No. 7 of 2014 concerning Reconsideration in Criminal Cases.  

scholarly journals ASPEK HUKUM PENINJAUAN KEMBALI LEBIH DARI SATU KALI DALAM PERKARA PIDANA (PERSPEKTIF PENEGAKAN KEADILAN, KEPASTIAN DAN KEMANFAATAN HUKUM)

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 335
Author(s):  
Budi Suhariyanto
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Aspects ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
State Agencies ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Matters

Constitutional Court Decision No. 34 / PUU-XI / 2013 has opened the space PK is not just one time as provided for by the Article 268 paragraph (3) Criminal Procedure Code so that PK can be done many times during found and submission of PK Novum although it has done previously. Perspective is the basis of this decision is justice. Responding to the verdict of the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court publishes SEMA No. 7 Year 2014 on Reconsideration Request Submission In Criminal Case. Through the SEMA Supreme Court warned that provisions PK only once outside the Article 268 Criminal Procedure Code which was canceled by the Constitutional Court, therefore, PK criminal cases (in a similar case) is more than 1 (one) can not be accepted. Restrictions on the desired PK criminal case the Supreme Court is to provide legal certainty in the process of final settlement of criminal matters. Government through Minister of Law and Human Rights take strategic steps in resolving the legal expediency vision polemic filing legal remedies PK criminal cases, by coordinating state agencies and relevant ministries so as to produce an agreement that filing PK many times can not be executed until the issuance of PP. Therefore still valid set forth in the Judicial Authority Law and the Law on the Supreme Court.Keywords : Legal Aspects, Reconsideration, Criminal Case

scholarly journals ANALISIS UPAYA HUKUM KASASI OLEH JAKSA PENUNTUT UMUM TERHADAP PUTUSAN BEBAS

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 88-93
Author(s):  
Munarty Munarty ◽  
Marwan Mas ◽  
Ruslan Renggong
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Republic

Secara teori, Jaksa Penuntut Umum (JPU) tidak diperkenankan mengajukan upaya hukum kasasi terhadap vonis bebas sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 244 KUHAP. Namun dalam praktek selama ini, Jaksa Penuntut Umum telah beberapa kali mengajukan kasasi terhadap putusan bebas dan beberapa di antaranya di kabulkan oleh Mahkamah Agung. Hal ini terjadi karena larangan mengajukan kasasi atas vonis bebas sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 244 KUHAP terkesan multitafsir sehingga menimbulkan perbedaan pendapat dalam penerapannya. Kondisi semacam ini sangat berseberangan dengan prinsip-prinsip Negara Hukum, khususnya dalam Upaya mewujudkan kepastian hukum. Atas dasar itulah, Mahkamah Konstitusi melalui putusannya dengan nomor 114/PUU-X/2012 menyatakan bahwa Frasa “kecuali terhadap putusan bebas” sebagaimana tercantum dalam Pasal 244 Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1981 tentang Hukum Acara Pidana (KUHAP) adalah bertentangan dengan UUD Negara Republik Indonesia tahun 1945. Menurut pertimbangan hukum Mahkamah Konstitusi, larangan mengajukan kasasi atau Putusan Bebas oleh Jaksa Penuntut Umum tidak memberikan upaya hukum biasa terhadap putusan bebas serta menghilangkan fungsi Mahkamah Agung sebagai Pengadilan Kasasi terhadap Putusan Bebas, sehingga tidak tercapai kepastian hukum yang adil dan prinsip perlakukan yang sama di hadapan hukum. In theory, public prosecutors (JPU) are not allowed to file a cassation against the acquittal as stipulated in Article 244 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, in practice so far, Public Prosecutors have several times filed an appeal against the acquittal decisions and some of them have been granted by the Supreme Court. This occurs because the prohibition on filing an appeal for an acquittal as stipulated in Article 244 of the Criminal Procedure Code has multiple interpretations, which creates different opinions in its application. This kind of condition is very contrary to the principles of rule of law, especially in the effort to create legal certainty. On that basis, the Constitutional Court through its decision number 114 / PUU-X / 2012 stated that the phrase "except for free decisions" as contained in Article 244 of Law Number 8 Year 1981 concerning Criminal Procedure Law (KUHAP) is contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. According to the legal considerations of the Constitutional Court, the prohibition against filing an appeal or Free Decision by Public Prosecutors does not provide ordinary remedies against free decisions and eliminates the function of the Supreme Court as a Cassation Court against Free Decisions, so that fair legal certainty is not achieved and the principle of equal treatment in the law.

The transformation of the judicial system in Kyrgyzstan an after 1991. Aspects of the development of administrative justice

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roman Burenko
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Kyrgyz Republic ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Administrative Justice

This article examines the transformation of the judiciary in the Republic of Kyrgyzstan after 1991, as well as aspects of the development of administrative justice in this state. The article presents the main stages of the development of the judicial system of the Kyrgyz Republic: 1993-2002, 2003-2009, 2010-2020. The device of the judicial system of the republic is described, the system of courts of general jurisdiction, inter-district economic courts, the judicial bids of the Supreme Court of Kyrgyzstan, as well as the courts of the second instance, and in addition to the elimination of the system of arbitration courts in the Republic and Military Courts (2003), disbanding the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kyrgyzstan (2010), the creation of the Constitutional Chamber in the Supreme Court of the Republic. The article provides aspects of the development of administrative justice.

scholarly journals Mewujudkan Keadilan Melalui Upaya Hukum Peninjauan Kembali pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 328
Author(s):  
M. Lutfi Chakim
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The Public ◽  
Binding Force ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Legal Remedy ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Pros And Cons

The reconsideration is an extraordinary legal remedy to the decision of Court that have legally binding (inkracht van gewisjde). The Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 34/PUU-XI/2013 stated that extraordinary legal remedy aims to obtain justice and truth material, so the provisions of Article 268 paragraph (3) Criminal Procedure Code states that, “request reconsideration of a decision can only be done once only” contrary to the 1945 Constitution and does not have binding force. The decision of Constitutional Court raises the pros and cons, on one side there are statements that reconsideration more than once is an effort to protect the rights of the public in obtaining justice, but on the other side there are statements that reconsideration is more than once is a violation of the principle of legal certainty. After analyzing the decision of the Constitutional Court No. 34/PUU-XI/2013  it could be concluded that, first, the reconsideration is more than once in accordance with the public interest to obtain justice in law enforcement, because in obtaining justice and truth material can not be limited by time. Second, the decision of the Constitutional Court are final and binding, despite raises the pros and cons, then all are required to implement the decision of the Constitutional Court. Therefore, the Supreme Court is expected to soon complete the Regulation of the Supreme Court about filing reconsideration in criminal cases by adjusting the decision of the Constitutional Court.

scholarly journals Some psychological impacts on judging in criminal cases within the Supreme Court of Cassation of the Republic of Serbia

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 13-28
Author(s):  
Dragutin Avramović
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Psychological Impacts ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Media Pressure

Following hypothesis of Andrew Watson, American professor of Psychiatry and Law, the author analyses certain psychological impacts on behavior of judges and examines the relationship between their idiosyncrasies and their judicial decisions. The survey encompasses the judges of Criminal Department of the Supreme Court of Cassation of the Republic of Serbia and, also, for comparative reasons, the judges of Criminal Department of the First Basic Court in Belgrade. Considering the main issues there is no great discrepancy between answers given by the judges of the Supreme Court and those of the Basic Court. Most responses of the Serbian judges deviate from Watson's conclusions, namely: they do not admit that they feel frustrated due to heavy caseloads, the significant majority of judges are reluctant to acknowledge their prejudices and influence of biases on their ruling, the significant majority of judges are not burdened with the idea of possible misuse of their discretion, they nearly unanimously deny that public opinion and media pressure affect their rulings, etc. Generally, the judges in Serbia are not willing to admit that they cannot always overcome their own subjectivities.

scholarly journals ANALISIS PENYELESIAN SENGKETA INTERNAL LEMBAGA NEGARA (STUDI KASUS PELANTIKAN PIMPINAN DEWAN PERWAKILAN DAERAH REPUBLIK INDONESIA PERIODE 2017-2019)

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 364
Author(s):  
Yanzah Bagas Nugraha ◽  
Dwi Andayani Budisetyowati
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
State Institution ◽  
The State ◽  
The Body ◽  
Internal Conflict ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Leadership Tenure ◽  
The People ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Republic

The establishment of the Regional Representative Council of the Republic of Indonesia so called Dewan Perwakilan Daerah (DPD-RI) at least has two objectives. The first is to enhance justice for the people in the region. Secondly, to expanding and increasing the participation of local communities in national life. The process to form this state institution is done by amending the 3rd amendment of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic Indonesia. However, in doing that  amendment there was an internal conflict within the body of DPD-RI involving the old and the new leaders of this institution last year. The length of leadership tenure which was initially made 5 years was amended to became 2.5 years. The different length of leadership tenure was then canceled by the Supreme Court and it was decided to be the same as other institution such as The People’s Consultative Assembly and The House of Representative in that the leadership tenure should be in accordance with the electoral cycle of 5 years. However, although the regulation of DPD-RI has been canceled, the Supreme Court keeps sending its representative to guide the oath of position of the new DPD-RI leadership. The only regulation that has been introduced by the state was regulation toward conflict between state institutions and this conflict can merely be resolved by the Constitutional Court. Therefore, there is an urgent need for the state to seek solution to solve this problem to prevent the same thing happened to other state institution in the future.

scholarly journals MODEL PENGUJIAN PERATURAN PERUNDANG-UNDANGAN SATU ATAP MELALUI MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 247
Author(s):  
Sholahuddin Al-Fatih
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Regulatory Testing ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
New Ideas ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Bureaucratic Reform

Post-reform of the role of judicial institution is run by two institutions namely the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court. The duties and authorities of the two institutions are regulated in the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia 1945 and the act that addresses the three institutions more specifically. Several powers possessed by the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, one of them is the authority to judicial review. The Constitutional Court is authorized to review the act on the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia 1945, while the Supreme Court is authorized to review under the Act on the above legislation.The unfairness of the regulatory testing function is feared to trigger bureaucratic inefficiency. Based on data released by the Supreme Court Clerk, it was recorded during 2016 that the Supreme Court received 18,514 cases, including the Hak Uji Materi (HUM) subject to legislation under the Act. While the number of cases of judicial review of the Constitutional Court in 2016-2017 amounted to only 332 cases. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct a bureaucratic reform and provide new ideas related to the model of one court of judicial review in Indonesia. So that in this paper will be discussed deeply about problematic of judicial review in Indonesia and the authority of the Constitutional Court to review the act under one roof with SIJURI mechanism.

scholarly journals IMPLEMENTASI PERATURAN MAHKAMAH AGUNG REPUBLIK INDONESIA NOMOR 1 TAHUN 2016 TENTANG PROSEDUR MEDIASI DI PENGADILAN (Study Putusan Pengadilan Agama Rantauprapat No. No.487/Pdt.G/2020/PA-RAP Jo Putusan Pengadilan Tinggi Medan No.73/Pdt.G/2020/PTA-MDN)

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 72-81
Author(s):  
Muhammad Yusuf Siregar
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Aspects ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
High Court ◽  
Is Research ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Position ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Research Show

This study aims to analyze the legal aspects of the implementation of the Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2016 on Mediation Procedures in Courts (Study of Rantauprapat Religious Court Decision No. 487 / Pdt.G / 2020 / PA-RAP Jo Medan High Court Decision No. 73 / Pdt.G / 2020 / PTA-MDN. This research is Normative Empirical, which is research by looking at conditions in the field by linking the source of laws and regulations in force in the Republic of Indonesia. The benefits that will be received from the results of this study are to find out and analyzing the legal position of the Supreme Court Regulation Number 1 of 2016 concerning Mediation Procedures in Courts and To find out and analyze the Implementation of the Supreme Court Regulation Number 1 of 2016 concerning Mediation Procedures in Courts in the Rantauprapat Religious Court Decision No.487 / Pdt .G / 2020 / PA-RAP Jo Medan High Court Decision No.73 / Pdt.G / 2020 / PTA-MDN. The results of the research show that the provisions of the Regulation of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number 1 of 2008 and / or Regulation of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number 1 of 2016 concerning Mediation Procedures in Courts in article 02 paragraph 04 states that "Judges in consideration of the decision of a case must state that the case concerned has strived for peace through Mediation by stating the name of the Mediator for the case concerned. The position of Mediation as stated in the Regulation of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number 1 of 2016 is one of the steps that must be taken in carrying out the Judicial system which is based on the decision of the Medan High Court Panel of Judges declaring that to completely reject the Plaintiff's Lawsuit with the Consideration that the case has been taken through the Mediation route although not maximally and His legal consideration is that the position of the witnesses presented by the Plaintiff is a witness who did not see the Plaintiff and Defendant fighting, but only told the story of the Plaintiff. Keywords: Implementation, Procedure, Mediation

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document