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 Critique of two decicions of Constitutional Court of the Republic of Srpska / Kritika dvije odluke Ustavnog suda Republike Srpske

2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (5) ◽  
pp. 114
Author(s):  
Milan Blagojević
Keyword(s):  
Social Insurance ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Internal Morality ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right ◽  
In The Beginning

The subject of this paper are two decisions of Constitutional Court of the Republic of Srpska which set in motion not only the question of constitutionality of one statute from the area of social insurance, but the questions of internal morality of the state and law as well. Beginning part of the paper is preceding to introduction into that problem, and in the beginning part the author, by the example from the judicial practice, point out an unconstitutional practice due to which in the area of social insurance is infringed the right on property by inactivity of competent organs of public authority. The infringement of the same right is caused by statute provisions analised in the paper. It is word on provisions of the Law on social insurance in the Republic of Srpska, by which is prescribed that the pensions will be determined again for some of beneficiaries, what in practice means that their pensions will be decreased, and that for some of other beneficiaries it will not be done. This unconstitutional behaviour of legislator, due to which the right on property and equality before the law are infringed, are tried to be resolved by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Srpska in its two decisions by opinion according to which it is a matter of policy of legislator and suitability to prescribe whether the pensions will be determined again for all or for some beneficiaries. This opinion is exposed to the criticism in the paper.

scholarly journals Constitutional Complaint Sebagai Penambah Kewenangan Baru Dalam Undang-Undang Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nurul Komariah ◽  
Muhammad Romadhoni Nur Matori Ridwan ◽  
Alivia Vabesta ◽  
Ginanjar Damayanti ◽  
Siti Nariyah
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Quality Data ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Secondary Sources ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The One ◽  
The Right

Guarantee the rights of every citizen for violations of constitutional rights by seeking to increase the authority of the Judicial Review Request by every justice seeker for violations of constitutional rights, but not at least the petition was granted.  The Mahkarnah of the Constitution, which checks what the petition is made of, often considers that what the Judicial Review proposes is not the subject of acknowledgment.  Constitutional Court Judges considered it to be a Constitutional complaint in which this constitutional complaint was not part of the Court's authority in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and the applicable Law on the Understanding of the Constitution.  As a legislative body, the DPR is the one who has the right to change the Constitutional Court Law by including the authority of Constitutional complaint to the Constitutional Court. In this paper the author uses a research method in the form of quality data analysis with secondary sources of literature and deductive logic analysis.  Consitional Complaint to the Constitutional Court.

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.

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.

scholarly journals Upaya Menciptakan Produk Hukum Berkualitas Konstitusi Melalui Model Preventif Review

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 774
Author(s):  
Muhammad Reza Maulana
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Order ◽  
The Law ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Constitutional Issue ◽  
Legal Product

Pada hakikatnya judicial review dilaksanakan demi terciptanya keseimbangan hukum dan terpenuhinya hak konstitusional setiap pemangku kepentingan untuk bertindak dan mengajukan permohonan pembatalan suatu undang-undang kepada Mahkamah Konstitusi dengan menyatakan undang-undang tersebut telah bertentangan dengan UUD RI 1945. Pengujian undang-undang terhadap UUD 1945 dilakukan dalam upaya penyempurnaan hukum yang berlandaskan konstitusi. Setiap undang-undang haruslah dilandasi oleh aturan dasar yang tidak hanya tercantum pada konsiderannya saja, melainkan dibuat serta dilaksanakan berlandaskan nilai dan norma konstitusionalitas. judicial review yang selama ini dilakukan oleh banyak pihak pada Mahkamah Konstitusi membuktikan bahwa kualitas produk hukum atau aturan hukum yang selama ini dilahirkan oleh pembuat undang-undang seringkali bertolak belakang dengan keteraturan hukum, sehingga diperlukan langkah hukum preventive demi menjaga integritas lembaga pembentuk undang-undang agar tidak dianggap melahirkan produk hukum yang asal-asalan. Oleh karena itu, di dalam penelitian ini akan mengkaji dan menginisiasi pembentukan produk hukum yang berkualitas konstitusi sehingga Mahkamah Konstitusi sebagai lembaga pengawal konstitusi memberikan kontribusi dengan cita konstitusi dan melahirkan produk hukum dengan kualitas konstitusi. Dalam penelitian ini metode yang yang digunakan adalah yuridis normatif dengan menggunakan pendekatan undang-undang dan konseptual. Hasil penelitian ini menggambarkan betapa pentingnya upaya preventive sebelum suatu aturan hukum kemudian ditetapkan, disahkan dan dilaksanakan, dimana ada persoalan konstitusionalitas terhadap implementasi suatu produk hukum yang kemudian oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi dinyatakan bertentangan dengan Undang-Undang Dasar Republik Indonesia 1945.Basically, judicial review has done to create a balance of law and to fulfill the constitutional right for every stakeholder to act and apply for application to constitutional court by stating the rule was contradicted to the constitution of Republic of Indonesia 1945. The application was made as an effort to perfect the law which is based on the constitution. Each rule has to be based on the basic rules, not only on its consideration but also is made and implemented in basic values and norms of contitutionality. Judicial review done by many people on constitutional court has proven that the quality of law product or rules of law made by the legislative often contradict with constitutional order of law, so it is necessary to take a step on preventive legal measurer to keep up the integrity of the rule maker of being judged making unqualified legal products. Therefore, this research reviews and initiates the production of law product so that the Constitutional Court can give preventive contribution on each legal products made, to be able to run with the ideals of the constitution and create legal products with constitution quality. This research used juridical normative method with legal and conceptual approaches. The results of this study illustrate how important preventive efforts before a rule of law are then set, ratified and implemented. In which there is a constitutional issue on the implementation of a legal product, that will be later declared by the Constitutional Court to be contradictory to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesian.

scholarly journals The Rights Of The Constitutional Court's Decision On The House Of Representatives 'Representatives About The President's Prospective And / Or The President's Vice Representatives According To The State Basic Law Of The Republic Of Indonesia Year 1945

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fahri Bachmid ◽  
Said Sampara ◽  
La Ode Husen
Keyword(s):  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Vice President ◽  
The State ◽  
Political Institution ◽  
Vocational School ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Legislative Assembly

This study examined the rights of the constutional court’s decision on the house of representative’s representatives about on the president prospective and/ or the president’s vice private vocational school by the state basic state of the Republic of Indonesia year 1945. The purpose of this study is to find out the mechanism of the Constitutional Court in examining, adjudicating and deciding the opinion of the People's Legislative Assembly that the President and / or Vice President have violated the law in the form of treason against the state, corruption, bribery, other serious criminal acts, disgraceful acts, and / or the opinion that the president and / or the vice president no longer meets the requirements as President and / or Vice President. And also To find out the decision of the Constitutional Court as a binding judicial institution on the opinion of the House of Representatives followed up by the MPR as a political institution that the President and / or Vice President has violated the law in the form of treason, corruption, bribery, other serious crimes, disgraceful acts and / or the opinion that the president and / or vice president no longer fulfill the requirements as President and / or Vice President.

scholarly journals Menyoal Kebebasan Beragama dan Penodaan Agama Di Indonesia

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 195-212
Author(s):  
Yayan Sopyan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Religious Beliefs ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Reform Era ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right

Abstract: Questioning the Religious Freedom and blasphemy in Indonesia. The presence of the Constitutional Court in the reform era is the strengthening of the foundations of constitutionalism in the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia Year 1945. The Court in this case a role to enforce and the protector of the citizen's constitutional rights and the protector of the human rights. Including in this case, the right to religion and religious practices and teachings of their respective religions, in accordance with the constitutional mandate. However, on the other hand there is the discourse of freedom of expression and freedom of speech includes freedom to broadcast religious beliefs and understanding of the "deviant" and against the "mainstream" religious beliefs and understanding in general, as in the case of Ahmadiyah. The Court in this case is required to provide the best attitude when faced judicial review in this case still required in addition to guarding the constitution in order to run properly.   Abstrak: Menyoal Kebebasan Beragama dan Penodaan Agama di Indonesia. Kehadiran lembaga Mahkamah Konstitusi di era reformasi merupakan upaya penguatan terhadap dasar-dasar konstitusionalisme pada Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945. MK dalam hal ini berperan menegakkan dan melindungi hak-hak konstitusional warga negara (the protector of the citizen’s constitutional rights) dan pelindung HAM (the protector of the human rights). Termasuk dalam hal ini, hak untuk memeluk agama dan menjalankan ibadah serta ajaran agamanya masing-masing, sesuai dengan amanat konstitusi. Namun, disisi lain ada wacana kebebasan berekspresi dan kebebasan berpendapat termasuk didalamnya kebebasan untuk menyiarkan keyakinan dan pemahaman keagamaan yang “menyimpang” dan bertentangan dengan “mainstream” keyakinan dan pemahaman keagamaan pada umumnya, seperti dalam kasus Ahmadiyah. MK dalam hal ini dituntut untuk mampu memberikan sikap terbaik saat dihadapkan judicial review dalam kasus ini selain tetap dituntut untuk mengawal konstitusi agar dapat berjalan sebagaimana mestinya. DOI: 10.15408/jch.v2i2.2314

scholarly journals Penegakan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 13/PUU-XV/2017 Mengenai Hak Mendapatkan Pekerjaan dan Hak Membentuk Keluarga

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 858
Author(s):  
Muhammad Reza Winata ◽  
Intan Permata Putri
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Industrial Relations ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Contract ◽  
Legal Power ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right

Jaminan konstitusi terkait hak konstitusional untuk mendapatkan pekerjaan dalam Pasal 28D ayat (2) UUD NRI 1945 dan hak konstitusional untuk membentuk keluarga dalam Pasal 28B ayat (1) UUD 1945 telah dibatasi dengan adanya ketentuan Pasal 153 ayat (1) huruf f Undang-Undang No 13 Tahun 2003 tentang Ketenagakerjaan. Keberadaan perjanjian kerja menghalangi hak pekerja untuk menikah dalam satu institusi karena pekerja harus mengalami pemutusan hubungan kerja untuk dapat melaksanakan haknya membentuk keluarga yang sebenarnya dijamin dalam konstitusi dan peraturan perundang- undangan. Pengujian Pasal 153 ayat (1) huruf f UU No 13 Tahun 2003 dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 13/PUU-XV/2017 telah menyatakan frasa "kecuali telah diatur dalam perjanjian kerja, peraturan Perusahaan, atau perjanjian kerja bersama" bertentangan dengan UUD 1945. Artikel ini hendak menjawab kekuatan mengikat dan akibat hukum putusan, sekaligus Penegakan putusan dengan memetakan penyelesaian terkait peraturan perundang-undangan dan perjanjian kerja yang tidak tidak sesuai dengan putusan dan bertentangan dengan prinsip kebebasan berkontrak. Penelitian ini didasarkan pada penelitian kualitatif, dimana sumber analisis yakni Putusan MK terkait permasalahan yang diangkat, peraturan perundang-undangan, buku dan artikel ilmiah. Artikel ini hendak memetakan penyelesaian yang sesuai terkait kepada perjanjian kerja yang tidak menjamin hak pekerja yang dijamin dalam konstitusi, serta bertentangan dengan prinsip kebebasan berkontrak. yakni: pertama, penyelarasan peraturan perundang undangan di bawah Undang-undang judicial review di Mahkamah Agung, kedua, penyelesaian perselisihan hak melalui Pengadilan Hubungan Industrian yang akan menguji penegakan putusan dalam perjanjian kerja, peraturan perusahaan, atau perjanjian kerja bersama.The constitutional guarantee regarding constitutional rights to obtain employment in Article 28 D paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and the constitutional rights to form a family in Article 28 B paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution has been limited by the provisions of Article 153 paragraph (1) letter f Law No. 13 of 2003 concerning Labor. The existence of a work agreement prevents the right of workers to get married in one institution because workers must experience termination of employment to be able to exercise their rights to form a family which is actually guaranteed in the constitution and legislation. Testing Article 153 paragraph (1) letter f of Law No. 13 of 2003 in the Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 13/PUU-XV/2017 has stated the phrase "except as stipulated in work agreements, company regulations, or collective labor agreements" contrary to the 1945 Constitution. This article is about to answer the binding and consequent legal power of the decision, as well as Enforcement of decisions by mapping out solutions related to legislation and work agreements that are not incompatible with decisions and are contrary to the principle of freedom of contract. This research is based on qualitative research, where the source of analysis is the Constitutional Court Decision related to the issues raised, legislation, scientific books, and articles. This article intends to map appropriate solutions related to work agreements that do not guarantee workers’ rights guaranteed in the constitution, as well as contrary to the principle of freedom of contract. namely: first, alignment of legislation under the judicial review law in the Supreme Court, secondly, settlement of rights disputes through the Industrial Relations Court which will test enforcement of decisions in work agreements, company regulations, or collective labor agreements.

scholarly journals IMPLIKASI JUDICIAL REVIEW TERHADAP HAK ANGKET YANG DIAJUKAN OLEH DPR PASCA PUTUSAN MK NO.26/PUU-XVI/2017 TENTANG PERMOHONAN HAK ANGKET DPR

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Agnes Fitryantica
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
State Power ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Negative Implication ◽  
Materials Used ◽  
Positively Charged

The Constitutional Court based on Article 24C of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia has 4 authorities and 1 obligation. These provisions are further contained in Article 10 of Law Number 24 Year 2003 concerning the Constitutional Court. The constitutional authority of the Constitutional Court in examining, adjudicating and deciding cases of judicial review of the constitution is about the constitutionality of norms. The method used is normative (doctrinal) legal research, using secondary data in the form of primary, tertiary and secondary legal materials. One of the legal materials used as the basis for analysis is the judge's decision and its implications for the judicial review. The results of the study that, the authority to test the Act against the 1945 Constitution theoretically or practically, makes the Constitutional Court as a controlling and balancing body in the administration of state power. The KPK is not the object of the Parlement questionnaire rights. The ruling emphasized that the KPK was an institution that could be the object of the questionnaire right by the Parlement. The implications of the decision of the Constitutional Court Number 36 / PUU-XV / 2017, can be grouped in two ways, namely: first, the implications are positively charged, namely the affirmation of the ownership of the House of Representatives questionnaire rights in Indonesian governance. Second, the negative implication is the possibility of using the DPR's excessive questionnaire rights without regard to existing limitations.Keywords : constitutional court; KPK; parlement.Mahkamah Konstitusi berdasarkan Pasal 24C UUD NRI Tahun 1945 memiliki 4 kewenangan dan 1 kewajiban. Ketentuan tersebut dituangkan lebih lanjut dalam Pasal 10 UU Nomor 24 Tahun 2003 tentang Mahkamah Konstitusi. Kewenangan konstitusional Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam memeriksa, mengadili dan memutus perkara pengujian undang-undang terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar adalah mengenai konstitusionalitas norma. Metode yang digunakan adalah penelitian hukum normatif (doktrinal), dengan menggunakan data sekunder berupa bahan hukum primer, tersier dan sekunder. Salah satu bahan hukum yang dijadikan dasar analisis adalah putusan hakim dan implikasinya terhadap yudicial review. Hasil penelitian bahwa, kewenangan menguji Undang-Undang terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 secara teoritis atau praktis, menjadikan Mahkamah Konstitusi sebagai lembaga pengontrol dan penyeimbang dalam penyelenggaraan kekuasaan negara, Dalam Putusan Nomor 36/PUU-XV/2017, Mahkamah Konstitusi memutuskan menolak permohonan pemohon yang pada intinya menyebut KPK bukan merupakan objek hak angket DPR. Putusan tersebut menegaskan KPK merupakan lembaga yang dapat menjadi objek hak angket oleh DPR. Implikasi dari putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 36/PUU-XV/2017 tersebut, dapat dikelompokkan dalam dua hal, yaitu: pertama, implikasi yang bermuatan positif, yaitu penegasan dimilikinya hak angket Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat dalam ketatanegaran Indonesia. Kedua, Implikasi yang bermuatan negatif yaitu adanya kemungkinan penggunaan hak angket DPR yang eksesif tanpa memperhatikan batasan-batasan yang ada.Kata Kunci: DPR; KPK; Mahkamah Konstitusi.     

scholarly journals POLITIK HUKUM KEWENANGAN KONSTITUSIONAL DEWAN PERWAKILAN DAERAH DALAM PROSES LEGISLASI PASCA PUTUSAN MK NOMOR 92/PUU-X/2012

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 365
Author(s):  
Anna Triningsih
Keyword(s):  
House Of Representatives ◽  
State Institution ◽  
The State ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
Historical Approach ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Laws And Regulations

<p>Undang-Undang Nomor 17 Tahun 2014 tentang Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat, Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat, Dewan Perwakilan Daerah, Dan Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah (UU MD3) pasca putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK) dinilai memiliki problem substantif/materil akibat materi muatannya bertentangan dengan Undang-Undang Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945 (UUD NRI 1945), yang mengakibatkan kerugian konstitusional terhadap Dewan Perwakilan Daerah (DPD), meliputi dikuranginya kewenangan DPD untuk dapat mengajukan (Rancangan Undang-Undang) RUU, dikuranginya kewenangan DPD untuk membahas RUU dan dikuranginya kewenangan DPD dalam kedudukannya sebagai lembaga perwakilan daerah. Hal ini menunjukan bahwa pembentukan UU MD3 nyata-nyata tidak menghormati putusan MK yang diberi mandat UUD NRI 1945 sebagai lembaga penafsir dan penjaga konstitusi, dengan tidak menghormati, mematuhi, dan melaksanakan putusan MK ini menunjukkan ketidakpatuhan terhadap putusan lembaga negara yang telah ditunjuk konstitusi untuk mengawal kemurnian pelaksanaan konstitusi. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode normatif menggunakan pendekatan perundang-undangan ( statute approach ), pendekatan konsep ( conceptual approach ), dan pendekatan historis ( historical approach ). Ketidaktaatan penyusunan UU MD3 pada putusan MK merupakan pengingkaran UUD NRI 1945 dan perkembangan ini merupakan langkah mundur reformasi. Pembentuk Undang-Undang, dalam hal ini, Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat (DPR) dan Presiden harus segera melakukan perubahan UU Nomor 12 Tahun 2011 tentang Pembentukan Peraturan Perundang-undangan dengan berpijak pada rambu-rambu konstitusional Putusan MK Nomor 92/PUU-X/2012.</p><p>Law Number 17 Year 2014 on the People’s Consultative Assembly, House of Representatives, Regional Representatives Council, and the Regional House of Representatives (MD3 Law) after the decision of the Constitutional Court (MK) is considered to have a substantive problem due to the substance that is contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (the 1945 Constitution), which resulted in the constitutional loss of Regional Representatives Council (DPD), including the reduction of DPD authority to propose draft bills, to discuss draft bills and the reduction in its authority as the regional representative institution. This shows that the drafting of MD3 Law is obviously not respecting the decision of the Court that is mandated by the 1945 Constitution as the interpreter and guardian institution of the constitutional, by not respecting, obeying and implementing MK’s decision which indicates non-compliance with the decision of the state institution that has been designated to guard the purity of the constitution implementation of the constitution. This study uses normative method with statute approach, conceptual approach and a historical approach. The noncompliance of the drafting of MD3 Law towards the MK’s decision is a denial of MK and this development is a step back of Reformation. The legislators, in this case, the House of Representatives (DPR) and the President should immediately amend the Law Number 12 Year 2011 on the Establishment of Laws and Regulations based on the MK’s Decision No. 92/PUU-X/2012. </p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document