scholarly journals POLITIK HUKUM JUDICIAL REVIEW DI INDONESIA

2011 ◽  
Vol 11 (Edsus) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kartono Kartono
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Authority ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Review System ◽  
Concrete Problem ◽  
The Law

Although Indonesia judicial review system is not opens the possibility of regulations review under the act against the constitution, das sollen pracitically these conditions may still occur. From political of law the legal authority of constitutional court should be able to put the interests of citizens rights that are based on the principles of recognition, guarantees, protection and legal certainty of a fair and equal treatment before the law. Given that changes in the constitution can not be done easily, then the judicial review in UUD 1945 should not be formulated too limitedly that restricting the organic law to complete and explore the authority that is adaptable to any concrete problem. Keywords: politics of law, constitutional court, UUD 1945, limitedly.

scholarly journals Mengukur Konstitusionalitas Peninjauan Kembali (PK) Kedua dalam Perkara Perdata

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 452-474
Author(s):  
Priyo Handoko
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Due Process Of Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
Civil Cases ◽  
Constitutional Analysis

The study aims to provide a constitutional analysis of judicial review (PK) in civil cases for more than once. The research-based is the decision of the Constitutional Court No. 108 / PUU-XIV / 2016 and No. 34 / PUU-XI / 2013 in which the two judgments provide a different classification between criminal and civil cases. The method used in this research is a normative juridical with a conceptual, legislation, and case approach. The results of the study assert that: first, the opportunity for judicial review (PK) more than once in a criminal case is an effort to uphold justice substantively by the Constitutional Court. Whereas the restriction of judicial review (PK) only once in civil cases is intended to guarantee legal certainty. Secondly, there is rational inconsistency in the arguments of the Constitutional Court which is indicated in Decision No. 108 / PUU-XIV / 2016 and No. 34 / PUU-XI / 2013. Both criminal and civil cases must seek to establish and maintain substantial justice, especially since there is a due process of law principle that requires that everyone can get the same opportunity before the law.

scholarly journals Legal Examination of the Constitutional Court Number 28/PUU-XI/2013 Concerning the Case of Judicial Review of Law Number 17 of 2012 Concerning Cooperatives

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 42
Author(s):  
Lauddin Marsuni ◽  
Salle Salle ◽  
Syarifuddin Syarifuddin ◽  
La Ode Husen
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Technical Analysis ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Normative Approach ◽  
Natural Person ◽  
Analysis Methods ◽  
The Law ◽  
Legal Force

This study aims to understand the legal review on Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 28/PUU-XI/2013 on the review of Law No. 17 of 2012 on Cooperatives against The 1945 Constitution. The benefits of this research are socialization and provide legal awareness about cooperatives activities in Indonesia. This research uses a normative approach that focuses on studying the legal and regulatory norms associated with the object of the problem. The technical analysis used in this study is the Hermeneutic and Interpretation analysis methods. The results of the study indicate that Phrase “natural person” in the cooperatives sense was based on Article 1 point 1 of Law No. 17 of 2012 is against Article 33 section (1) of The 1945 Constitution because that definition leads to individualism. Furthermore, although the Petitioner's petition is only regarding certain articles it contains substantial norm content, it will cause other articles in Law No. 17 of 2012 has no binding legal force. Therefore the Petitioner's petition must be declared in accordance with the law for all contents of Law No. 17 of 2012. As for the sake of legal certainty, Law No. 25 of 1992 valid for a while awaiting the establishment of a new Law.

scholarly journals Implikasi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 85/PUU-XIV/2016 terhadap Praktek Persekongkolan Tender

2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 369
Author(s):  
Titis Anindyajati
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Research Methodology ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
The Law

Pada pokoknya, persekongkolan tender merupakan salah satu bentuk persekongkolan yang dilarang UU Nomor 5/1999 tentang Larangan Praktek Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat dan juga menjadi perkara yang paling sering diproses KPPU. Namun baik secara teoritis maupun praktik menimbulkan permasalahan yaitu karena adanya pemaknaan yang bias akan frasa “pihak lain” dalam Pasal 22 UU Nomor 5/1999. Hal inilah yang melatarbelakangi adanya pengujian Pasal 22 ke MK. Dalam penulisan ini yang dibahas yaitu bagaimana pengaturan persekongkolan tender menurut peraturan perundang-undangan, bagaimanakah implikasi yuridis Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 85/PUU-XIV/2016 tentang pengujian Pasal 22 UU Nomor 5/1999 serta bagaimana analisis hukum terhadap pertimbangan hukum Putusan MK tersebut. Penelitian ini menggunakan penelitian yuridis normatif dimana obyek penelitian ini adalah peraturan perundang-undangan dan Putusan MK. Dalam hal ini Penulis menyimpulkan, yaitu, Pertama, persekongkolan tender yang merupakan suatu bentuk kerja sama antara dua pihak atau lebih untuk menguasai pasar yang bersangkutan dan/atau memenangkan peserta tender yang mengakibatkan terjadinya persaingan usaha tidak sehat diatur secara eksplisit dalam Pasal 1 angka 8 dan Pasal 22 UU Nomor 5/1999 serta Peraturan KPPU Nomor 2/2010, Kedua, Implikasi yuridis Putusan MK Nomor 85/PUU-XIV/2016 bermanfaat untuk menjamin kepastian hukum dan keadilan bagi para pihak seperti pengusaha utamanya masyarakat. Untuk itu, perlu adanya harmonisasi antara satu peraturan dengan peraturan lainnya, pengujian UU terhadap UUD terkait pengaturan persekongkolan tender dalam persaingan usaha tidak sehat ataupun revisi terhadap UU Nomor 5/1999.Principally, tender conspiracy is one form of conspiracy that subjected by the Law No. 5/1999 on The Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition, and also as a type of case that frequently occurred and processed by the KPPU. However, in theory, and in practice, there are some issues that plague the regulation, because of the occurrence of bias and unclear interpretation of the phrases “other parties” contained in Article 22 of Law 5/1999. This interpretation issue then became the background in the petition for review of Article 22 to the Constitutional Court. This paper mainly discussed the regulation of tender conspiracy according to the existing Law, and also to study the juridical implications of Constitutional Court Decision Number 85/PUU-XIV/2016 concerning the review of Article 22 Law 5/1999. This paper also delves into the legal analysis of the court considered in the aforementioned Decision. This paper utilized the means of normative juridical research methodology, with the existing regulations and Constitutional Court Decision as the object of research. In the paper, the writer concludes that, first, tender conspiracy is a form of cooperation between one party or more to control particular market and/or to determine the awardees of tenders which may cause unfair business competition explicitly regulated in Article 1 number 8 and Article 22 Law 5/1999 and also the KPPU Regulation Number 2/2010, second, the juridical implications of Constitutional Court Decision Number 85/PUU-XIV/2016 was necessary in order to guarantee the equitable legal certainty and fairness toward all parties especially business practising citizens. Thus, there is a necessity to achieve harmony among these regulations, which can be obtained through the judicial review of laws against the Constitution concerning the regulations of tender conspiracy and by means of legislative revision toward Law 5/1999.

scholarly journals KONSTITUSIONALITAS MATERIELE WEDERRECHTELIJK DALAM KEBIJAKAN PEMBERANTASAN TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 131
Author(s):  
Ade Adhari
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
The Law ◽  
Principle Of Legality ◽  
Laws And Regulations

ABSTRAKPutusan Nomor 003/PUU-IV/2006 menyatakan materiele wederrechtelijk dalam Undang-Undang Tindak Pidana Korupsi bertentangan dengan Pasal 28D ayat (1) UUD NRI 1945, dan tidak berlaku mengikat. Penelitian ini berupaya memahami apakah tepat atau tidak pertimbangan Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam putusan tersebut. Dalam menjawab permasalahan tersebut digunakan penelitian doktrinal, norma hukum serta asas yang melandasi lahirnya putusan tersebut. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian diketahui terdapat ketidaktepatan dalam pertimbangan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Mahkamah Konstitusi telah keliru dalam usahanya memvalidasi Penjelasan Pasal 2 ayat (1) Undang-Undang Tindak Pidana Korupsi dengan menguji berdasarkan asas legalitas yang terdapat dalam Pasal 1 ayat (1) KUHP. Padahal prinsipnya pengujian yang dilakukan oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi adalah menguji undang-undang terhadap UUD NRI 1945. Selain itu, Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi berorientasi pada asas legalitas yang hanya mengutamakan rechtssicherheit dan mengesampingkan keberadaan gerechtigkeit dan zweckmässigkeit. Lebih dari itu, tidak diakuinya materiele wederrechtelijk telah meniadakan eksistensi hukum yang hidup di masyarakat sebagai sumber hukum untuk menyatakan suatu perbuatan bersifat melawan hukum. Hal ini bertentangan dengan mandat Pasal 18B ayat (2) UUD NRI 1945, dan berbagai peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku. Dengan demikian materiele wederrechtelijk tidak bertentangan dengan kontitusi.Kata kunci: materiele wederrechtelijk, korupsi, konstitusionalitas. ABSTRACT Constitutional Court Decision Number 003/PUUIV/2006 states unlawful criminal acts (materiele wederrechtelijk) in the Anti-Corruption Law is inconsistent with Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, and not binding. Doctrinal research, legal norms and principles underlying the birth of the court decision are used in answering whether the problem arising from the decision is justified. Based on the result of the research, there is an inaccuracy in the consideration of the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court has erred in its attempt to validate the Elucidation of Article 2 Paragraph (1) of Corruption Law by examining based on the legality principle contained in Article 1 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code. Whereas in principle, what has been conducted by the Constitutional Court is a judicial review of the law against the 1945 Constitution. In addition, the Constitutional Court’s decision is oriented on the principle of legality which only prioritizes legal  certainty (Rechtssicherheit) and overrides justice (Gerechtigkeit) and utility (Zweckmässigkeit). Moreover, the unrecognized materiele wederrechtelijk has negated the existence of a living law in society as a source of law to declare unlawful acts. This is contrary to the mandate of Article 18B paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution and various prevailing laws and regulations. Thus, the material wederrechtelijk is not contradictory to the constitution. Keywords: materiele wederrechtelijk, corruption, constitutionality.

scholarly journals Erga Omnes Terhadap Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Dalam Perspektif Pembentukan Peraturan Perundang-Undangan

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 331-342
Author(s):  
Sucahyono Sucahyono
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Review System ◽  
Literature Study ◽  
Decentralized System ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Centralized System

Abstract:The Constitutional Court's Decision is a product of the Judicial Review that was submitted to test the validity of the law against the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. In the implementation there are two models of the system of testing the law, namely centralized or decentralized system. Both have fundamental differences because the decentralized review system is not Erga Omnes, while the centralized system has the binding nature of Erga Omnes. The research method uses normative juridical methods, using secondary data obtained through literature study and analyzed qualitatively. The results and discussion of this research are that the Constitutional Court has provided much better direction for Indonesian legal politics, as seen from its objective decisions.Keywords: Erga Ormes, Constitutional Court, Statutory Regulations. Abstrak:Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi merupakan produk dari Judicial Review yang diajukan untuk menguji keabsahan undang-undang terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia. Dalam pelaksanaannya ada dua model sistem pengujian undang-undang yaitu centralized atau decentralized system. Keduanya memiliki perbedaan yang mendasar karena system desentralisasi review tidak bersifat Erga Omnes, sedang system centralized memiliki sifat mengikat Erga Omnes. Metode penelitian menggunakan metode yuridis normatif, dengan menggunakan data sekunder yang diperoleh melalui studi pustaka dan dianalisis secara kualitatif. Hasil dan diskusi dari penelitian ini adalah bahwa Mahkamah Konstitusi telah banyak memberikan arah politik hukum Indonesia yang lebih baik, terlihat dari putusan-putusannya yang bersifat objektif.Kata Kunci: Erga Ormes, Mahkamah Konstitusi, Peraturan Perundang-Undangan

scholarly journals PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM TENAGA KERJA KONTRAK DAN OUTSOURCING, SERTA PROBLEMATIKA IMPLEMENTASINYA

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 145-160
Author(s):  
Tri Budiyono
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Business Continuity ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Labor Protection ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
Philosophical Approach ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Relationship

The relationship between employers and workers tends to be characterized by a tension between the employers' and workers' interests. While the employers maintain business continuity to obtain optimal advantages, the workers demand to get decent wages or welfare. For example, the laborers have struggled through a constitutional way by submitting a judicial review of Law No. 13 of 2003 concerning Manpower. This research used a conceptual approach and a philosophical approach to observe the relevant legal material in the Constitutional Court's decision to obtain legal guarantees with more legal certainty. In conclusion, this research found that: (a) The phrase 'for the sake of the law' should have granted the laborers more legal protection. However, it still creates multiple interpretations that lead to the loss of certain legal protections. (b) The Constitutional Court, through its decision, has laid the basis of legality with more legal certainty through the implementation of labor protection norms gradually. (c) Even though the Constitutional Court's decision has already provided legal certainty normatively, the uncertainty of legal protection still exists in practices.

ASAS KEPASTIAN HUKUM DAN ASAS KEBEBASAN BERKONTRAK SEBAGAI PERTIMBANGAN UTAMA DALAM PENYELESAIAN SENGKETA PERBANKAN SYARIAH (Kajian Yuridis Putusan MK Nomor 93/PUU-X/2012)

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 69
Author(s):  
Edi Hudiata
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Islamic Banking ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Ideal Norm ◽  
Freedom Of Contract ◽  
Binding Force

Since the verdict of the Constitutional Court (MK) Number 93/PUU-X/2012 pronounced on Thursday, August 29, 2013, concerning the judicial review of Law No. 21 of 2008 on Islamic Banking, it is no longer dualism dispute resolution. The verdict as well as strengthen the jurisdiction of Religious Court to resolve Islamic banking disputes. In consideration of the judges, judges agreed stating that Article 55 paragraph (2) and (3) of Law No. 21 of 2008 which is an ideal norm, contains no constitutional problems. The problem is the explanation of the constitutional article 55 paragraph (2) of the Act. The emergence of the Constitutional Court verdict No. 93/PUU-X/2012 which substantially states that the explanation of Article 55 paragraph (2) of Law No. 21 of 2008 does not have binding force, basically does not violate the principle of freedom of contract which is common in contract law. The parties are allowed to make a dispute resolution agreement out of religious court based on provisions as Act No. 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution. Keywords: dispute resolution, legal certainty and the principle of freedom of contract

scholarly journals Judicial Consistency dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi tentang Pengujian Undang-Undang Penodaan Agama

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 080
Author(s):  
Zaka Firma Aditya
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Prevention Act ◽  
Ratio Decidendi ◽  
The Law ◽  
Prevention Law

Tulisan ini hendak membahas mengenai konsistensi putusan-putusan mahkamah konstitusi dalam pengujian undang-undang berdasarkan asas preseden. MK beberapa kali dipandang tidak konsisten karena kerap mengeluarkan putusan yang bersifat overrulling. Namun, sebenarnya tidak sedikit juga putusan MK yang konsisten mengikuti preseden. Meskipun penggunaan asas preseden hanya dikenal di negara yang menganut tradisi common law, MK ternyata juga menerapkannya. Putusan MK tentang pengujian UU Pencegahan Penodaan Agama adalah salah satu bentuk dianutnya asas preseden di MK. Putusan ini secara konsisten menyatakan bahwa UU Pencegahan Penodaan Agama tetap konstitusional karena akan terjadi kekosongan hukum apabila UU Pencegahan Penodaan Agama diputus inkonstitusional. Dalam perkara tersebut, MK mempertahankan ratio decidendinya terhadap konstitusionalnya UU Pencegahan Penodaan Agama karena meskipun MK sadar bahwa UU a quo banyak mengandung kelemahan. Konsistensi standing MK terhadap UU Pencegahan Penodaan Agama ini merupakan salah satu bentuk dari dipraktekannya doktrin preseden.This paper will discuss the consistency of the constitutional court decision in the judicial review cases based on the principle of precedent. MK several times deemed inconsistent because often issued a ruling that is overruling. However, there were actually a lot of MK decisions that consistently followed the precedent. Although the use of the precedent principle is only known in common law tradition, the Constitutional Court apparently also applies it. The Constitutional Court’s decision regarding the Blasphemy Prevention Act was one form of the principle of precedent in the Constitutional Court. This decision consistently states that the Blasphemy Prevention Act remains constitutional because a legal vacuum will occur if the Blasphemy Prevention Law was decided to be unconstitutional. In this case, the Court retained its ratio decidendi to the constitutionality of the Blasphemy Prevention Law, even though the Court was aware that the Law contained many weaknesses. The consistency of the Constitutional Court on the judicial review of the Blasphemy Prevention Act is one form of the practice of precedent doctrine.

scholarly journals Legal Policy of Water Resources Management by Local Governments: A Review of Right to Water in Indonesia

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 250
Author(s):  
Nadia Astriani
Keyword(s):  
Surface Water ◽  
Water Resources ◽  
Water Resources Management ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
Management Policy ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Normative Study ◽  
Resources Management ◽  
The Law

This study is based by the cancellation of Act No. 7 of 2004 on Water Resources by the Indonesian Constitutional Court. Over the past 10 years, the law is the basis for the water resources management in Indonesia. The cancellation of the law would provide great impact for water resources management policy, especially with regard to the provision of right to water. Hence, this study aimed to determine the legal status of Right to Water provided by the local government after the cancellation of Act No. 7 of 2014 on Water Resources. The object of this normative study includes legal principles and systematic. This is due to the focus of this study is the meaning of the right principle to ruled state in the context of realizing the peoples’ prosperity and the position of Water Resources Act as the basis for the issuance of Government Regulation and Right to Water. The results of study indicate that in order to provide legal certainty for permit holder for Right to Use Water and Right to Commercialize Water, the ministry has issued various ministerial regulations, although the nature of these regulations only fills a legal vacuum. In the case of permit to Use of Water Resources, all permits for use of water resources that use surface water issued before the decision of Constitutional Court No. 85/PUU-XI/2013 are still valid. To permit referred to it, evaluation is conducted based on 6 (six) the principles of water resources management. Request new permit are in the process or for renewal of permit to use water resources that use surface water, processed as 6 (six) principles of water resources management. Although, in order to ensure legal certainty, the government should immediately issues the Act in Lieu of Water Resources Management which will be the basis for water resources management in Indonesia.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document