scholarly journals On the matter of retroactivity of the rulings of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (20) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
O. V. Pushniak
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Legal Doctrine ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
Temporal Effect ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
General Principles Of Law ◽  
Set Up

The article focuses on the problem of the temporal effect of the rulings of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine declaring the unconstitutionality of legislation, in particular on the matter of retroactivity of such rulings. Based on the existing standpoints in the legal doctrine, the author has analyzed the legislation and legal practices of Ukraine, notably the practice of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine and the Supreme Court. In particular, the highest consideration is given to the established legal positions of the courts, which set up the non-retroactivity of the rulings of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine on unconstitutionality of an act of legislation. This position is based on the courts' interpretation of Art. 152 of the Constitution of Ukraine as such, which makes it impossible for these rulings of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to be retroactive. The article also examines the exceptions to this rule. The author notes the fundamental shortcomings of this position, whose categorical approach contradicts a number of fundamental legal principles. It unjustifiably prefers legal certainty, ignoring the requirements of justice, protection of human rights, equality, as well as a number of components of legal certainty or similar requirements of supremacy and direct effect of the Constitution of Ukraine, consistency of law, legality. The inconsistency of such position is also highlighted from the standpoint of the legal dogmatics and argumentation. In general, the decisions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine and the Supreme Court on this matter do not contain any detailed or proper arguments. Meanwhile, there is a misinterpretation of the relevant provision of the Constitution of Ukraine as determining the direction of the temporal effect of the ruling of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine on the rights and obligations, when in fact this provision directly sets only the dates of invalidation of unconstitutional provisions. Under such conditions, the author states that the general principles of law, the current Constitution and legislation of Ukraine generally do not prohibit the retroactivity of rulings of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine on unconstitutionality of an act of legislation. Rather, they point at its necessity in many cases. At the same time, the author emphasizes the need for a more flexible approach to determining the directions of the temporal effect of rulings of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine

scholarly journals KEPASTIAN HUKUM MENGENAI PERBEDAAN ANTARA PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH AGUNG DAN PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI TERKAIT PENCALONAN PERSEORANGAN PESERTA PEMILU ANGGOTA DPD

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rasji . ◽  
Cinthia .
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Court Ruling ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Law And Justice

Indonesia is a country based on the law (rechstaat) whose basis is stated in Article 1 Paragraph (3) of the UUD NRI 1945. The essential principles of the rule of law based on Article 24 Paragraph (1) of the UUD NRI 1945 are the guarantee of the organizer of the power of an independent judicial institution without interference from other parties to hold a court to uphold law and justice. Ideally, the results of the two institutions' decisions do not cause problems in society. However, the results of the decisions of the two institutions are still found differently regarding the issue of nominating individual participants in the members of the Regional Representatives Council. Any other way, the results of the Constitutional Court ruling prohibited members of the Regional Representatives Council who were still in the position of administrators of political parties. Meanwhile, the decision of the Supreme Court allows candidates for members of the Regional Representatives Council who are still in the position of managing political parties. In this study, the researcher will examine the differences between the Supreme Court's decision and the Constitutional Court's decision regarding the nomination of individual participants in the Regional Representatives Council by using normative legal methods and conducting interviews as supporting data. The results of the study revealed that based on the legal basis and authority of the institution, the verdict that had legal certainty regarding the nomination of individual participants in the Regional Representatives Council election was the decision of the Constitutional Court.

scholarly journals MODEL PENYELESAIAN PERSELISIHAN PARTAI POLITIK SECARA INTERNAL MAUPUN EKSTERNAL (The Model of Political Party Dispute Settlement Internally and Externally)

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 35
Author(s):  
Tri Cahya Indra Permana
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Political Party ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
The Other ◽  
District Court ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Sense Of Justice

Undang-Undang Parpol mengatur bahwa perselisihan Parpol diselesaikan secara internal oleh Mahkamah Partai atau sebutan lain daripada itu dan secara eksternal oleh Pengadilan Negeri dan Mahkamah Agung. Substansi perselisihan yang final dan mengikat di Mahkamah Partai adalah perselisihan kepengurusan, selebihnya dapat diajukan upaya hukum ke Pengadilan Negeri dan Mahkamah Agung. Di dalam praktek, pengaturan tersebut telah menjauhkan dari rasa keadilan, kepastian hukum dan kemanfaatan, oleh karenanya sebaiknya direvisi yang mana perselisihan PAW, pelanggaran terhadap hak anggota partai politik, penyalahgunaan wewenang,  pertanggungjawaban keuangan, dan atau keberatan terhadap keputusan partai politik (termasuk keputusan untuk tidak memutuskan terhadap sesuatu hal) final dan mengikat dengan Putusan MPP. Sedangkan perselisihan kepengurusan dapat diajukan upaya hukum ke Mahkamah Konstitusi. Political parties act stipulates that a political party dispute resolved internally by the Mahkamah Partai or other designation of that and externally resolved by the District Court and the Supreme Court. The dispute substance in Mahkamah Partai which is final and binding is about organization dispute, the other can be settled in District Court and the Supreme Court. In practice, that arrangement makes the decision apart from the sense of justice, legal certainty and utility. Therefore, these rules should be revised so that the regulation of PAW, violations of the rights of members of political parties, abuse of authority, financial liability, or an objection to the decision of political parties (including the decision not to decide on something) is final and binding through Mahkamah Partai decision. While the organization disputes can be submitted to the Constitutional Court for legal action.

scholarly journals Sources of Formation of Legal Positions of Russian Highest Judicial Bodies

2021 ◽  
pp. 130-142
Author(s):  
Mariia Viktorovna Globa
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Doctrine ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Legal Method ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation

The present study is devoted to determining the place and role of legal positions of higher judicial bodies of Russia (judicial legal positions) in the mechanism of legal regulation. Let us specify in advance that the author means the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation (taking into account the 2014 amendments made to the legislation concerning the liquidation of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation) as the higher judicial bodies of Russia. Establishing the meaning and role of judicial legal positions in the mechanism of legal regulation is carried out by the author of this study through the analysis and demonstration of the main sources of formation of legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation. In this regard, the author of this work identifies as sources of formation of judicial legal positions: legal and non-legal. Non-legal sources of formation of legal positions of the highest courts of Russia differ from the legal ones in the fact that initially they do not have material expression, exist in the abstract, however, have no less importance for the process of formation of judicial legal positions. To the legal sources of creating legal positions of the highest judicial bodies of Russia the author includes: formal sources of law, current legal practice, legal doctrine. As non-legal sources of formation of legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation are: the inner conviction of a judge and professional legal consciousness of a judge. The author of this scientific research consistently reveals the importance and role of each source of formation of judicial legal positions. The conducted study of the most significant sources of formation of judicial legal positions allowed to better understand the place of legal positions of higher courts of Russia in the legal system and their role in legal regulation, which is reduced not just to the interpretation of judicial acts, but also to the formation of new legal provisions, which ultimately form a uniform judicial practice. Methodological basis of the study consisted of: analysis, synthesis, comparative-legal method, deduction, induction and other ways of knowledge used in science. Scientific conclusions and proposals contained in this work may serve as a basis for further theoretical study of the problems of judicial legal positions and used in the activities of legislative and law enforcement bodies.

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.

scholarly journals JUDGE’S DECISION ON WORK TERMINATION DISPUTE IN INDONESIA AFTER CONSTITUTIONAL COURT DECISION NUMBER 37/PUU-IX/2011

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neni Vesna Madjid ◽  
Saldi Isra ◽  
Kurnia Warman ◽  
Mardenis Mardenis
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Industrial Relation ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Legal Documents ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Force

Testing the provision of Article 155 section (2) Law Number 13 of 2003 on Manpower has been decided by the Constitutional Court (CC) through decision Number 37/PUU/IX/2011. Prior to the Constitutional Court decision, there are many various interpretations of undetermined clause. The Constitutional Court firmly states that the undetermined clause must be interpreted as “having a permanent legal force ".This study aims to analyze how the judges dismissed dispute of work termination cases in Indonesia after the decision. The research applied juridical normative method  by using secondary data literature such as legal documents, previous studies and other references which are relevant to the judges' decision within the Supreme Court after the Constitutional Court decision. Based on the analysis temporary result, the judges within the Supreme Court in 3 regions (Padang, Pekanbaru and Jakarta Pusat) and the Supreme Court itself are not practically guided by the Constitutional Court decision. It obviously results in the lack of legal certainty for the parties, especially workers.Keyword: Constitutional Court, Industrial Relation Court, Interpretation, Supreme Court.

scholarly journals Hapusnya Wewenang Executive Review Pemerintah terhadap Peraturan Daerah: Studi Pasca-adanya Putusan MK Nomor 137/PUU-XIII/2015 dan Nomor 56/PUU XIV/2016

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lusy Liany
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Government Control ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
Internal Affair ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Government ◽  
Legal Opinion

The Constitutional Court, on April 4, 2017, through the Decision No.137/PUU-XIII/2015 has invalidated the enactment of the rules that enabled a Governor to annul Regency/City Laws. On June 14, 2017, with the Decision No.56/PUU-XIV/2016, the Court also invalidated the authority of Ministry of Internal Affair to void Provincial Laws. These decisions brought about a question on whether the government still has the authority to revise those regional laws or it can only be taken through the material review to the judiciary. Based on the background, the authors formulated two problems. Firstly, what is the mechanism of government control of the Regional Regulation after the Constitutional Court Decision Number 137 / PUU-XIII / 2015 and the Court's Decision Number 56/PUU-XIV/2016? Secondly, what are the obstacles to judicial review of regional regulations in the Supreme Court? The research method applied in this paper is a normative method in which qualitative data are gathered and the statute and conceptual approaches are employed. First result, the government, both the Minister of Internal Affairs and the Governor, can oversee the regional law-making process through the executive preview mechanism and the annulation of both Province and Regency/City Laws is in the domain of the Supreme Court's authority. Second, the judicial review process in the Supreme Court has not fully met the legal principles of judicial review process, as it is not open to public, there is no deadline to finish the trial, and the Supreme Court’s decision is not supported by sufficient details of judges’ legal opinion.

scholarly journals Dualisme Judicial Review Peraturan Perundang-Undangan di Indonesia

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 318
Author(s):  
Nanang Al Hidayat ◽  
Mela Sari
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Conflict Of Laws ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Regulatory Bodies ◽  
Laws And Regulations

Based on the provisions of Article 24A paragraph 1 of the 1945 Constitution and Article 24C paragraph 1 of the 1945 Constitution, there is a dualism of judicial institutions authorized to decide the judicial review of conflict of laws and regulations, namely the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court. This study aims to find out how to regulate the judicial review of legislation in Indonesia. The research method used in this paper is the normative juridical. The results of the study showed that the dualism of statutory regulatory bodies resulted in inconsistencies in providing decisions related to the prevailing laws and regulations in Indonesia. Whereas legislation is arranged hierarchically and has a proportion of certain content material that must be tested consistently in one institution only to provide a legal certainty for the community. Berdasarkan ketentuan dalam Pasal 24A ayat 1 UUD 1945  dan Pasal 24C ayat 1 UUD 1945 terjadi dualisme lembaga kehakiman yang berwenang memutus judicial review konflik peraturan perundang-undangan yaitu Mahkamah Agung dan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui bagaimana pengaturan judicial review peraturan perundang-undangan di Indonesia. Metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam tulisan ini adalah yuridis normatif. Hasil penelitian menunjukan dualisme lembaga pengujian peraturan perundang-undangan menyebabkan inkonsistensi dalam memberikan putusan terkait permasalahan peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku di Indonesia. Padahal peraturan perundang-undangan itu tersusun secara hirarkis dan mempunyai proporsi materi muatan tertentu sehingga harus diuji secara konsisten dalam satu lembaga saja agar memberikan suatu kepastian hukum bagi masyarakat.

scholarly journals Penyelesaian Satu Atap Perkara Judicial Review Di Mahkamah Konstitusi

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-112
Author(s):  
Muhammad Ishar Helmi
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Low Costs

Abstract.After the integration of the judiciary, the Supreme Court has a very large responsibility which previously only managed judicial techniques (examining, adjudicating and deciding cases) and administration at the Supreme Court level, but after that the Supreme Court had to manage judicial and organizational techniques, administration , and the finance in the Supreme Court and the Judicial Agency below is supplemented by the authority of judicial review of legislation under the Act. However, with unification, cassation and authority judicial review can lead to accumulation of cases in the Supreme Court, so that this is contrary to the principle of fast justice and low costs and legal certainty will be ruled out. In addition, cases of judicial review at the Supreme Court also exclude the principle of audi et alteram partem, namely the statement heard by the parties in the trial, while the proceedings in the Supreme Court do not adhere to the principle as in the Constitutional Court which is open to the public.Keywords: Judicial Review, Audi et Alteram Partem, Constitutional Court. Abstrak.Setelah adanya penyatuatapan lembaga peradilan, Mahkamah Agung memiliki tanggung jawab yang sangat besar yang sebelumnya hanya mengelola teknis yudisial (memeriksa, mengadili, dan memutus perkara) dan administrasi di tingkat Mahkamah Agung, akan tetapi setelah itu Mahkamah Agung harus mengelola teknis yudisial dan organisasi, administrasi, serta finansial di Mahkamah Agung dan Badan Peradilan di bawahnya ditambah lagi dengan kewenangan judicial review peraturan perundang-undangan di bawah Undang-Undang. Namun, dengan penyatuatapan, kasasi dan kewenagan judicial review dapat mengakibatkan menumpuknya perkara di Mahkamah Agung, sehingga hal tersebut bertentangan dengan asas peradilan cepat dan biaya ringan serta kepastian hukum akan dikesampingkan. Selain itu, perkara judicial review di Mahkamah Agung juga mengenyampingkan prinsip audi et alteram partem yakni keterangan didengarkan oleh para pihak di dalam persidangan, sedangkan proses persidangan dalam Mahkamah Agung  tidak menganut prinsip seperti di Mahkamah Konstitusi yang bersifat terbuka untuk umum. Kata Kunci: Judicial Review, Audi et Alteram Partem, Mahkamah Konstitusi

scholarly journals Legal Certainty – Protected Values and Partial Objectives: The Case of the Czech Republic

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-82
Author(s):  
Jana Janderová ◽  
Petra Hubálková
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
Administrative Practice ◽  
General Trust ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Arbitrary Decision ◽  
Legitimate Expectations

Legal certainty is an essential prerequisite for individuals’ autonomy, as lack of certainty prevents the planning of future activities and making rational decisions. As other key legal principles, it comprises an axiological quality which influences the interpretation of legal rules and the application of statutory laws. Thus, it should be adhered to by all branches of state power. Its objective is to promote several values that are all important for the protection of human rights: the rule of law, protection of legitimate expectations, general trust in law, prevention of arbitrary decision-making, inadmissibility of retroactivity. However, in some legal systems, the concept of legal certainty is slightly different. These differences also influence the extent and limits of legal certainty as it may not mean total rigidity and prevent necessary changes in statutory laws and decision-making. The reasonable balance is influenced by its axiological content. The article analyses the interpretation practice of the Czech Constitutional Court with the aim to determine the partial values inherent to the principle and categorise them according to their importance. Several partial objectives were determined by qualitative analysis. The quantitative analysis indicates that the key partial objectives include protection of the values comprising a general trust in the law, individuals’ legitimate expectations, and a certain degree of predictability of laws, administrative practice and courts’ decisions (uniformity, transparency, internal consistency and stability). Having identified these values, further research may be conducted as to how and to what extent expectations should be upheld.

DEKADENSI PEMILIHAN HAKIM AGUNG OLEH DPR RI

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-104
Author(s):  
Rustam Magun Pikahulan
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Good Governance ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Institutional Status ◽  
The Government

Abstract: The Plato's conception of the rule of law states that good governance is based on good law. The organization also spreads to the world of Supreme Court justices, the election caused a decadence to the institutional status of the House of Representatives as a people's representative in the government whose implementation was not in line with the decision of the Constitutional Court. Based on the decision of the Constitutional Court No.27/PUU-XI/2013 explains that the House of Representatives no longer has the authority to conduct due diligence and suitability (elect) to prospective Supreme Judges proposed by the Judicial Commission. The House of Representatives can only approve or disapprove candidates for Supreme Court Justices that have been submitted by the Judicial Commission. In addition, the proportion of proposed Supreme Court Justices from the judicial commission to the House of Representatives (DPR) has changed, whereas previously the Judicial Commission had to propose 3 (three) of each vacancy for the Justices, now it is only one of each vacant for Supreme Court Judges. by the Supreme Court. The House of Representatives no longer has the authority to conduct due diligence and suitability (elect) to prospective Supreme Judges proposed by the Judicial Commission. The House of Representatives can only "approve" or "disagree" the Supreme Judge candidates nominated by the Judicial Commission.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document