scholarly journals BINDING FORCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW DECISION OF CONSTITUTIONAL COURT TOWARD SUPREME COURT

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rian Van Frits Kapitan
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Review ◽  
Binding Force

scholarly journals KEKUATAN MENGIKAT PUTUSAN CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI TERHADAP MAHKAMAH AGUNG

2015 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 511
Author(s):  
Rian Van Frits Kapitan
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Historical Perspective ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Court Ruling ◽  
Supreme Court Ruling ◽  
Medical Practices ◽  
Constitutional Review ◽  
Binding Force ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Protected Object

The Existence of Supreme Court ruling that punishes dr. Bambang suprapto.Sp.M.Surg. using article 76 of law no 29 of 2004 on medical practices that had previously been cancelled by the Constitutional Court it self has proved that the Supreme Court has ruled constitutional the constitutional court's decision. This paper attempts to justify that by reason of any Constitutional Court still has binding force for the Supreme Court. It is based on four perspectives namely: 1. Historical perspective 2. Perspective protected object 3. Perspective functional 4. And normative perspectivAdanya putusan Mahkamah Agung yang menghukum dr. Bambang Suprapto, Sp.M.Surg mengunakan Pasal 76 Undang-Undang Nomor 29 Tahun 2004 tentang Praktek Kedokteran yang sebelumnya telah dibatalkan oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi dengan sendirinya telah membuktikan bahwa Mahkamah Agung telah mengesampingkan putusan constitutional review Mahkamah Konstitusi. Tulisan ini mencoba untuk menjustifikasi bahwa dengan alasan apapun putusan constitutional review Mahkamah Konstitusi tetap mempunyai kekuatan mengikat bagi Mahkamah Agung. Hal ini didasarkan atas empat perspektif, yaitu : 1.perspektif historis, 2.perspektif objek yang dilindungi, 3.perspektif fungsional, dan 4.perspektif normatif

scholarly journals KAJIAN YURIDIS TERHADAP PENEGASAN HIEARAKI PERATURAN PERUNDANG-UNDANGAN DI INDONESIA DALAM PERSPEKTIF STUFEN THEORIE

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 95
Author(s):  
Muhammad Yusrizal Adi Syaputra
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
State Institutions ◽  
Binding Force ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Uncertainty

Rule lower against the rules of higher then lower regulation it can test the material (judicial review) to be canceled entirely or partially canceled. The assertion of hierarchy intended to prevent overlap between legislation that could give rise to legal uncertainty. Position regulations set by the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) House of Representatives (DPR), the Regional Representatives Council (DPD), the Supreme Court (MA), the Constitutional Court (MK), the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK), Commission Judicial (KY) , Bank Indonesia (BI), the Minister, the Agency, Organization, or commissions, in the Indonesian legal system recognized by Act No. 12 of 2011 either were born because of higher regulatory mandate and within the scope and authority of the minister. Thus, no doubt that the regulations set by state institutions, have binding force that must be obeyed by the parties set forth therein. While the Regulations issued policy also recognized as an Freies Ermessen in the execution of its duties and functions.<br /><br />

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.

PENJARA TERHADAP DOKTER DALAM PERSPEKTIF MENGIKATNYA PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI DAN PEMIDANAAN INTEGRATIF

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 59
Author(s):  
Warih Anjari
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Medical Profession ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Court Ruling ◽  
Binding Force ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Negative Impacts ◽  
Sentencing Theory

ABSTRAKKekuatan mengikat putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi bersifat final dan mengikat. Namun Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 4/PUU-V/2007 tidak ditaati oleh Putusan Nomor 1110 K/Pid.Sus/2012. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi telah menganulir ancaman pidana penjara dalam Pasal 75 ayat (1), Pasal 76, dan Pasal 79 Undang-Undang Nomor 29 Tahun 2004 tentang Praktik Kedokteran. Putusan Mahkamah Agung tetap menjatuhkan pidana penjara terhadap dokter yang melanggar pasal tersebut. Kondisi ini menimbulkan ketidaksesuaian antara kekuatan mengikat putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi dan tujuan penjatuhan pidana yang integratif berdasarkan Pancasila. Masalah dalam tulisan ini adalah bagaimanakah implikasi Putusan Nomor 1110 K/Pid.Sus/2012 dikaitkan dengan kekuatan mengikat Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi? Dan bagaimanakah implikasi penjatuhan pidana penjara bagi dokter yang tercantum dalam Putusan Nomor 1110 K/ Pid.Sus/2012 dikaitkan dengan teori tujuan pemidanaan integratif? Metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam tulisan ini adalah metode penelitian yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan kasus. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi memiliki sifat erga ormes sehingga harus diikuti oleh Mahkamah Agung. Pidana penjara terhadap dokter yang tidak menggunakan izin praktik tidak dapat mencapai tujuan pemidanaan integratif. Akibatnya pelayanan kesehatan bagi masyarakat tidak terlayani, dan merugikan profesi dokter. Kesimpulannya adalah putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi tidak mempunyai kekuatan mengikat sehingga menjadi tidak efektif dan tujuan pemidanaan integratif berdasarkan Pancasila tidak tercapai.Kata kunci: pidana penjara, kekuatan putusan, tujuan pemidanaan integratif.ABSTRACTThe binding force of the Constitutional Court ruling is final. However, the Supreme Court Decision Number 1110 K/Pid.Sus/2012 does not abide by the Constitutional Court Decision Number 4/PUU-V/2007. The Constitutional Court Decision has annulled the imprisonment penalties in Article 75 paragraph (1), Article 76, Article 79 of Law Number 29 of 2004 concerning Medical Practices. The Supreme Court in its decision imposed the sanction of imprisonment on the doctors violating the aforementioned articles. This condition lead to such a discrepancy between the final and binding decision of the Constitutional Court and the integrated purposes of sentencing under Pancasila. Formulation of the problems in this analysis meets some points on how the implication of the Supreme Court Decision Number 1110 K/Pid.Sus/2012 regarding the binding force of the Constitutional Court Decision; and how the implication of the imposition of imprisonment sanction for a list of doctors stated in the Supreme Court Decision Number 1110 K/Pid.Sus/2012 in terms of integrated objective of sentencing theory. The research method is a normative juridical by case-based approach. The nature of the decision of the Constitutional Court is erga omnes, that obliges the Supreme Court to act upon. The sanction of imprisonment against the doctors with no consent practices cannot reach the integrated purpose of sentencing. As a consequence, the health services to communities are abandoned and this bring negative impacts on medical profession. To be brief, the decision of the Constitutional Court is considered futile with no binding force, accordingly the integrated purpose of sentencing under Pancasila could not be achieved.Keywords: imprisonment, binding force of ruling, integrated purpose of sentencing.

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 Tafsir Konstitusional Pengujian Peraturan di Bawah Undang-Undang

2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 503
Author(s):  
Inna Junaenah
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Legal Reasoning ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Interpretation ◽  
Constitutional Review ◽  
State Institutions ◽  
Short Time ◽  
The Guardian

Particular problem in judicial review frequently found is there a contradiction between the subsidiary legislation and the constitution. Unfortunately, in several Supreme Court verdict on judicial review, there is no usage of constitutional interpretation on their legal reasoning. However within domain of Supreme Court authority, constitution is not the touchstone, but constitution perspective must be included to maintain consistency of legislation hierarchy. There are two reasons on that posibilities, first the approximation of constitutional review by the court and second, the consequences of Indonesian’s legal system that implementing legislation hierarchy. Responsibility as the guardian of constitution not only applied on Constitutional Court, but on all the state institutions including every citizen. In the context of guarding consistency of legislation hierarchy, Supreme Court might also develop constitutional interpretation in order to ensure conformity regulations that is examined to the constitution. In addition, meaning of the constitution can be developed by a judge that can be found in accordance with contextuality. The perspective is assessed to highlight more detailed the mapping of the use of constitutional interpretation on Judicial Review in supreme court post amandment of Constitution of Republic Indonesia 1945. This article formulatesthe notion of constitutional interpretation on Judicial Review. Within this concept, will be prepared by the use of mapping of constitutional interpretation on Judicial Review in supreme court post amandment of Constitution of Republic Indonesia 1945. Thus this research was intended to make the judge use constitutional interpretation. Of course if the recommendations are applied, it can be achieved not instantly in a short time. With the use of Constitutional interpretation on Judicial review in supreme court, the constitutionallity can be reflected later on legislation hierarchy as a whole legal system.

scholarly journals LEGAL PROBLEMS OF DUALISM OF JUDICIAL REVIEW SYSTEM IN INDONESIA

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pan Mohamad Faiz
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Current System ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Review System ◽  
Constitutional Review ◽  
Legal Problems ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Laws And Regulations

Indonesia implements dualism of judicial review system because there are two different judicial institutions that are granted the authority to review laws and regulations, namely the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court. This research aims to analyse the problems caused by the dualism of judicial review system. It found two main legal problems of the current system. First, there is an inconsistency of decisions concerning judicial review cases for the same legal issues decided by the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court. Second, there is no mechanism to review the constitutionality of People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR) decisions and regulations under the level of law. Based on these findings, this research suggests that the authority to review all laws and regulations should be integrated under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court.Keywords: Constitutional Court, Constitutional Review, Judicial Review

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document