scholarly journals The integration of the authority of judicial institutions in solving general election problems in Indonesia

2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 237-255
Author(s):  
Ahmad Siboy
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
General Election ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
District Courts ◽  
Election Administration ◽  
Resolution Process ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Authority

The authority to adjudicate general election problems/ disputes scattered in various judicial institutions has made the resolution process drawn out and, complicated, creating overlapping powers and the potential for conflicting decisions between judicial institutions. This study examines how the judiciary's authority is regulated in adjudicating election problems, why it is necessary to integrate judicial authority, and how the concept of the judiciary's power is in judging all general election problems. This research aims to map the judiciary's power and find the judicial institution's design with an authority to adjudicate all general election problems. This study used juridical-normative research with a statutory approach, conceptual and case approaches. The results show that the authority to judge general election problems is given to the Constitutional Court, Supreme Court, State Administrative Court, and District Courts of Appeal. The large number of judicial institutions authorized to judge has been proven to be incompatible with general election administration and judicial power administration principles. The authority to adjudicate all election issues must be exercised in one judicial institution. The judiciary that can exercise this authority refers to the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court, or the exercise can be performed by establishing a remarkable judicial institution.

scholarly journals KEWENANGAN BADAN PENGAWAS PEMILU DALAM PENANGANAN PELANGGARAN ADMINISTRASI DITINJAU DARI PERSPEKTIF SISTEM PERADILAN INDONESIA

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 74-85
Author(s):  
Alasman Mpesau
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Supervisory Board ◽  
Electoral System ◽  
General Election ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
State Institutions ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Religious Courts

In the General Election and Regional Head Election Law, the Election Supervisory Board (Bawaslu) has the authority supervisory to each Election stages, it is the center for law enforcement activities of the Election (Sentra Gakkumdu) to criminal acts and carrying out the judicial functions for investigating, examining, and decided on administrative disputes of General Election and Regional Head Election.  With the Bawaslu’s authority then placed as a super-body institution in the ranks of the Election Management Body, due to its essential role in building a clean and credible electoral system, it also has potential for abuse of power within it. In Law no. 48 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power has defined state institutions that have the authority to administrate judicial functions. These are the Supreme Court and Judicial Bodies that under its lines of general court, Religious Courts, Military Courts, Administrative Court (PTUN) and the Constitutional Court. The research method is normative juridical, that focuses on the analysis of the laws and regulations on General Election, Regional Head Elections and the Law on Judicial Power. The analytical tool is descriptive analysis, by describing the main issues, an analysis is carried out that was supported by case-approach related to the research. The study concludes that Bawaslu in carrying out judicial functions in its position as a semi-judicial institution has not a hierarchical relationship to the Supreme Court (MA) and the Constitutional Court (MK); however, what does exist is functional relationship.

scholarly journals INDONESIAN JUDICIAL POWER POST AMENDMENT

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-95
Author(s):  
Krisnadi Nasution
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Fundamental Change ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Authority ◽  
The Republic ◽  
New Institutions ◽  
In The Beginning

Post the amendment of the Republic of Indonesia constitution, judicial authority in Indonesia underwent a fundamental change. The amendment was made based on the mandate contained in the 1945 Constitution post the amendment. Through normative juridical studies, an analysis of these changes will be carried out. The method of approach is based on statutory regulations and conceptually, as well as comprehensive. Post the amendment of the Republic of  Indonesia Constitution, in the beginning, only the Supreme Court had power in the field of justice. Then developed with the formation of new institutions in the field of justice namely: the Constitutional Court and the Judicial Commission. Through these additions, it is expected that checks and balances will occur in the formation of laws and regulations and the implementation of judicial power.

scholarly journals Implikasi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Terhadap Pembubaran Partai Politik Di Indonesia

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 227-239
Author(s):  
Hasir Budiman Ritonga
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
Party Members ◽  
The Republic

Judicial power in Indonesia under the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia shall be exercised by the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court. One of the authority of the Constitutional Court according to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia is to decide the dissolution of political parties. The facts in the current Indonesian system of ketatanegaran no cases of political parties that were dissolved through the decision of the Constitutional Court, it's just that the problem is when the Constitutional Court uses its authority to break the dissolution of political parties there are things that are formal juridically there is no clear rules, such as the legal status of party members who are not directly involved in the violation committed by the party and the status of party members who hold the position of members of the legislature both at the center and in the regions. So for that must be resolved by emphasizing the certainty, justice and benefit in the decision of the constitutional court

scholarly journals Penerapan Asas Audi Alteram Et Partem Pada Perkara Judicial review Di Mahkamah Agung

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 37
Author(s):  
Asep Syarifuddin Hidayat
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Public ◽  
Trial Process ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Impact

Abstract.Article 13 paragraph 1 of Act Number 48 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power states that all court hearings are open to the public, unless the Act says otherwise. Therefore, a judicial review trial must be open to the public. If the trial process of the judicial review is carried out in a closed manner, it can be considered a legal defect, because it is contrary to Article 13 paragraph (3) of the Law. The Law of the Supreme Court is not regulated that the judicial review is closed, because in the judicial review there is a need for openness or principle of audiences of parties or litigants must be given the opportunity to provide information and express their opinions, including the defendant as the maker of Legislation invitation under the law, so that the impact of the decision will need to be involved.Keywords: Judicial Review, Audi Alteram Et Partem Principle, Supreme Court, Constitutional Court Abstrak.Pasal 13 ayat 1 Undang-Undang Nomor 48 Tahun 2009 tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman menyebutkan semua sidang pemeriksaan pengadilan terbuka untuk umum, kecuali Undang-Undang berkata lain. Oleh karena itu,  judicial review persidangan harus dilakukan terbuka untuk umum. Apabila proses persidangan judicial review ini dilakukan secara tertutup, maka dapat dinilai cacat hukum karena bertentangan dengan Pasal 13 ayat (3) Undang-Undang tersebut. Undang-Undang Mahkamah Agung pun tidak diatur bahwa persidangan judicial review bersifat tertutup, karena dalam judicial review perlu adanya keterbukaan atau asas audi alteram et partem atau pihak-pihak yang berperkara harus diberi kesempatan untuk memberikan keterangan dan menyampaikan pendapatnya termasuk pihak termohon sebagai  pembuat Peraturan Perundang-Undangan di bawah Undang-Undang sehingga akan terkena dampak putusan perlu dilibatkan.Kata Kunci: Judicial Review, Asas Audi Alteram Et Partem, Mahkamah Agung, Mahkamah Konstitusi.

scholarly journals Judicial Law-making and Its Regulation in Independent Ukraine: Its History and Development

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 82-100
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Judicial Reform ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
History Of ◽  
Law Making

The article studies the history of the origin and development of legal regulation of judicial law-making in Ukraine. The analysis of doctrinal ideas about judicial law- making, as well as the peculiarities of its formation in Ukraine, allowed us to emphasise that our scientific research is relevant because of: 1) the duration of the domestic judicial system and judicial reform, which dates back to the proclamation of Ukraine’s independence (1991) and continues to this day; 2) the ambiguity of the legal support for judicial law-making in Ukraine, the high level of its variability, and the uncertainty of the legal status of the subjects of judicial power in the mechanism of domestic law-making; 3) the doctrinal uncertainty of the place of judicial law-making in the domestic legal system, the ambiguity of its scientific perception, and the understanding of its function in the domestic mechanism of legal regulation. This paper analyses the provisions of the legislation of Ukraine in terms of legal support for forms and procedures of judicial law-making, the legal significance of judicial law-making acts, and their impact on administering justice in Ukraine. Particular attention is paid to the activities of the judiciary in the areas of law enforcement and law-making, the relationship and interaction of which requires strengthening in the current context of reforming the judicial system and the judiciary in Ukraine. The stages of development of the legal regulation of judicial law-making in Ukraine are revealed, the peculiarities of the legal support for judicial law-making are determined, and the content of the legal regulation of the mechanism of participation of the subjects of the judicial power of Ukraine in the national law-making is characterised. Analysis of the history of the legal regulation of judicial law-making in Ukraine and the current state of its legal provision allowed us to conclude that despite the scale of legislative changes in the legal support for the judicial system of Ukraine today, neither the Supreme Court, nor the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, nor any other court institution is recognised by the legislation of Ukraine as subjects of law-making. The legislation of Ukraine does not contain a clear definition of their status as the subject of law-making with the right to accept generally obligatory acts of this process. It is noted that such uncertainty significantly weakens both the legal support for the courts and their activities. At the same time, it is noted that as a result of the adoption of legislative acts within the judicial reform during 2014-2017, which are still in force today, the legislator has made a significant step towards recognising and consolidating the official status of judicial law-making, namely: 1) a number of legislative powers of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court of Ukraine were consolidated; 2) the legislative regulation of the stages of the law-making process by the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court of Ukraine has been strengthened; 3) the legal consolidation of the status of law-making acts of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court of Ukraine has been improved.

scholarly journals PASANG SURUT HUBUNGAN ANTARA MAHKAMAH AGUNG DENGAN KOMISI YUDISIAL DALAM SISTEM KETATANEGARAAN REPUBLIK INDONESIA

2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammad Fauzan
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Relationship

The relationship between the Supreme Court by the Judicial Commission in the Republic of Indonesia system is not harmonious, this is due to the first, the disharmony between the law on judicial power, including the law on Judicial Power, the law on the Supreme Court, the law on Constitutional Court and the law on the Judicial Commission. Both of the leadership character that exist in the Supreme Court and the Judicial Commission were too emphasizes in ego that one sector feel more superior than the others. To create a harmonious relationship between Supreme Court and Judicial Commission can be done by establishing intensive communication between both of them and by improvement in legislation. Keywords : relation, Supreme Court, Judicial Commission   

scholarly journals State Administrative Court as a Means to Realize Justice

2018 ◽  
Vol 54 ◽  
pp. 03007
Author(s):  
Weda Kupita
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Methods ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Good Governance ◽  
The State ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
State Administration ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Authority ◽  
Laws And Regulations

The existence of 4 (four) kinds of judicial environment in the Judicial Authority in Indonesia, shows a judicial system adopted in Indonesia. the State Administration Judiciary is a apart of judicial power under the Supreme Court that examines cases relating to state administrative decisions. This article discusses the resolution of disputes as a result of the issuance of state administrative decisions in the state administrative court. This problem will be answered by using the legislation approach and case approach, with analysis using qualitative methods. To test a state administrative decision, a tool is needed to validate a state administrative decision. standard for testing the validity of the state administrative decisions in the examination at the state administrative court, are the laws and regulations and the general principles of good governance.

scholarly journals PERANAN MAHKAMAH AGUNG DALAM PENEGAKAN HUKUM DAN KEADILAN MELALUI KEKUASAAN KEHAKIMAN

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (02) ◽  
pp. 203-214
Author(s):  
Rinsofat Naibaho ◽  
Indra Jaya M. Hasibuan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Driving Factors ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Judicial Process ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Authority ◽  
Law And Justice ◽  
The Guardian

Judicial power is an independent power to conduct justice and to uphold law and justice. One of the executors of the judicial power was carried out by the Supreme Court. The role of the Supreme Court as the executor of judicial power is urgently needed as a suppressor of any violation of the law, the last place is seeking truth and justice, and the guardian of citizen freedom from all forms of violations of Human Rights. This Research has a formulation of the problem what is the role of the Supreme Court in upholding law and justice and what are the driving factors and obstacles to the Supreme Court in carrying out its role throught the judicial authority. The purpose of this study is to know and understand the extent to which the independence and independence of the Supreme Court at this time, to understand the role of the Supreme Court in upholding law and justice, and to know the driving factors and obstacles of the Supreme Court in carrying out its role through judicial power. Based on the analysis carried out, it was concluded that the Supreme Court in carrying out its duties and functions has 2 (two) roles, that is as the the Supreme Court Judiciary that carries out the judicial function of making regulations to fill the vacancy in order to smooth the judicial process as a State High Institutions that carries out non-judicial functions, which includes providing legal considerations/advice to other State High Institutions.  

scholarly journals Examine The Constitutionality Of Regulations Under Laws That Are Not Contrary To The Law But Contrary To The Constitution

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 104-113
Author(s):  
Aditya Yuli Sulistyawan ◽  
I Putu Eka Cakra
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Authority ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Laws And Regulations

Kewenangan untuk memeriksa UU terhadap Konstitusi dilakukan oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi dan pengujian hukum dan peraturan berdasarkan Undang-Undang tentang Hukum dilaksanakan oleh Mahkamah Agung sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 24 A paragraf 1 dan 24 C paragraf 1 Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945. Namun, dalam perumusan pasal a quo ternyata masih menyisakan masalah, yaitu belum mengatur mekanisme pengujian norma yang terkandung dalam undang-undang di bawah undang-undang jika ternyata tidak bertentangan dengan undang-undang tetapi bertentangan dengan konstitusi. Tulisan ini membahas pengujian norma-norma undang-undang melalui Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945 tentang kewenangan peradilan di casu a quo pasal 24 A ayat 1 dan 24 C ayat 1 Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945. Kata kunci: otoritas, hukum, konstitusi. Abstract The authority to examine the Law against the Constitution is carried out by the Constitutional Court and the testing of the laws and regulations under the Law on the Law is carried out by the Supreme Court as regulated in article 24 A paragraph 1 and 24 C paragraph 1 of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. However, in the formulation of the article a quo it turns out still leaves a problem, namely not yet regulating the norm testing mechanism contained in the legislation under the legislation if it turns out it is not contrary to the law but contrary to the constitution. This paper analyzes the testing of the norms of the legislation through the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia Republic IX concerning judicial authority in casu a quo article 24 A paragraph 1 and 24 C paragraph 1 of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. Keyword: authority, law, the constitution.

scholarly journals THE COMPARISON BETWEEN THE JUDICIAL COMMISSION OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA AND THE NETHERLANDS COUNCIL FOR THE JUDICIARY

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 40
Author(s):  
Suparto Suparto
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Code Of Ethics ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Personnel Administration

The purpose of this study is to analyze the position and authority of the Judicial Commission of the Republic of Indonesia and its comparison to the Netherlands Council for the Judiciary. This comparative study applied a normative juridical method. The data used in this study were secondary data. The collected data were then analyzed qualitatively. The results showed that Judicial Commission has an important position in judicial system in Indonesia so as structurally, its position is aligned with the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. Yet, functionally, its role is auxiliary to the judicial power institutions. Although the function of the Judicial Commission is related to judicial power, but the Judicial Commission is not an agent of judicial power, rather, it is an agency enforcing code of ethics of judges. Besides, the Judicial Commission is also not involved in the organization, personnel, administration and financial matters of judges. This condition is different from the Judicial Commission in European countries, such as the Netherlands. The Judicial Commission in the Netherlands (The Netherlands Council for the Judiciary) has an authority in the area of technical policy and policy making in the field of justice. The Netherlands Council for the Judiciary and other Judicial Commission in European countries generally have the authority in managing organization, budget and administration as well as in conducting promotions, transfers, and recruitments as well as imposing sanctions on judges. Thus, the Supreme Court only focuses on carrying out judicial functions and does not deal with administrative and judicial organization matters.�Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui dan memahami tentang kedudukan dan kewenangan Komisi Yudisial Republik Indonesia serta perbandingannya dengan Komisi Yudisial Belanda. Metode penelitian yang digunakan yaitu yuridis normatif dengan cara perbandingan (komparatif). Data yang digunakan adalah data sekunder sedangkan analisis data dilakukan secara kualitatif. Hasil penelitian yaitu bahwa kedudukan Komisi Yudisial sangat penting, sehinggasecara struktural kedudukannya diposisikan sederajat dengan Mahkamah Agung dan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Namun demikian� secara fungsionalperannya bersifat penunjang (auxiliary) terhadap lembaga kekuasaan kehakiman. Komisi Yudisial meskipun fungsinya terkait dengan kekuasaan kehakiman tetapi bukan� pelaku kekuasaan kehakiman, melainkan lembaga penegak norma etik (code of ethics) dari hakim. Selain itu Komisi Yudisial juga tidak terlibat dalam hal organisasi, personalia, administrasi dan keuangan para hakim. Hal ini berbeda dengan Komisi Yudisial yang ada di negara Eropa misalnya Belanda. Komisi Yudisial di Belanda (Netherland Council for Judiciary) memiliki kewenangan pada area kebijakan teknis dan pembuatan kebijakan pada bidang peradilan.Komisi Yudisial Belanda dan di Eropa pada umumnya mempunyai kewenangan dalam hal mengelola organisasi, anggaran dan administrasi peradilan termasuk dalam melakukan promosi, mutasi, rekruitmen dan memberikan sanksi terhadap hakim. Mahkamah Agung hanya fokus melaksanakan fungsi peradilan yaitu mengadili

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document