scholarly journals Integrasi Pengujian Peraturan Perundang-undangan oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 381-408
Author(s):  
Meidiana Meidiana Meidiana

This article discusses the testing of constitutional laws by the constitutional court. Testing legislation is a process for testing written rules that contain common binding legal norms, whether established by state institutions or authorized officials. This article concludes, the integration of important legislations to be objectified, is due to the fact that unintegrating system of legislations are causing confusion, causing institutional conflict between constitutional court and supreme court, and causing discredency between legislation regulations from the bottom to the top. This article will therefore require that the testing of legislation be perfomed by the constitutional court, with a record of the number of judges of the constitutional court to be added in order to bring about the development of laws to test for better legislation in the future. This integration effort demands a change in legal norms related to the authority of the Constitutional Court, both contained in the Constitution and the Judicial Power and the Constitutional Court Laws. Abstrak Artikel ini membahas tentang integrasi pengujian peraturan perundang-undangan oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi. Pengujian peraturan perundang-undangan adalah suatu proses untuk menguji peraturan tertulis yang memuat norma hukum yang mengikat secara umum baik yang dibentuk oleh lembaga negara atau pejabat yang berwenang. Artikel ini menyimpulkan, integrasi pengujian peraturan perundang-undangan oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi menjadi penting untuk direalisasikan dikarenakan sistem pengujian peraturan perundang-undangan yang tidak terintegrasi menyebabkan kerancuan, menimbulkan konflik kelembagaan antara Mahkamah Konstitusi dan Mahkamah Agung, serta mengakibatkan ketidaksinkronan antara peraturan perundang-undangan dari yang paling bawah sampai dengan yang paling atas. Oleh karenanya artikel ini menghendaki agar  pengujian peraturan perundang-undangan di bawah Undang-Undang Dasar terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar dilakukan secara terintegrasi, dalam hal ini oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi, dengan catatan jumlah hakim Mahkamah Konstitusi perlu ditambahkan guna mewujudkan pembangunan hukum pengujian peraturan perundang-undangan yang lebih baik di masa mendatang. Agar integrasi tersebut dimungkinkan, maka perlu dilakukan perubahan norma hukum terkait kewenangan Mahkamah Konstitusi, baik yang terdapat dalam Undang-Undang Dasar maupun Undang-Undang Kekuasaan Kehakiman dan Undang-Undang Mahkamah Konstitusi.

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 74-85
Author(s):  
Alasman Mpesau

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.


2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 95
Author(s):  
Muhammad Yusrizal Adi Syaputra

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 />


Author(s):  
Hasir Budiman Ritonga

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


2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 37
Author(s):  
Asep Syarifuddin Hidayat

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.


2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 82-100

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.


2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 206
Author(s):  
Tanto Lailam

Artikel ini membahas tentang penataan kelembagaan pengujian norma hukum di Indonesia, yang diawali dengan pembahasan problematika kelembagaan dan praktik pengujian norma hukum saat ini dan gagasan penataaan lembaga kedepan. Hasil kajian menunjukkan bahwa beberapa persoalan, meliputi (1) kelembagaan yang tidak ideal dan tidak sesuai dengan checks and balances system, hal ini terbukti banyaknya lembaga yang terlibat dalam pengujian norma, yakni MK, MA, dan Mendagri–Gubernur (Wakil Pemerintah Pusat); (2) persoalan objek pengujian yang tidak memiliki batasan yang jelas; (3) dalam praktik, persoalan tolok ukur pengujian terjadi kerumitan, terutama dalam penggunaan tolok ukur dalam menilai pertentangan norma hukum. Gagasan penataan kelembagaan ini di desain untuk kelembagaan satu atap pada MK, yang didasari argumentasi bahwa: MK sebagai pengawal Pancasila dan UUD 1945, dalam rangka penataan kelembagaan yang berbasis pada mekanisme checks and balances system, mewujudkan hierarkisitas peraturan perundang-undangan yang berkelanjutan, implementasi pengujian formil dalam praktik pengujian peraturan perundang-undangan di bawah undang-undang, penataan regulasi menjadi lebih tersistem, pengujian produk hukum tertentu merupakan pintu masuk untuk melihat semua persoalan pertentangan normanya pada setiap hierarki. Pada sisi yang lain, objek dalam sistem pengujian peraturan perundang-undangan juga belum terintegrasi menurut konstitusi dan belum mengarah pada penataan sistem heirarki norma hukum dan upaya harmonisasi norma hukum. Sistem konstitusi dengan paradigma “the supreme law of the land” mengharuskan seluruh peraturan dibawahnya harus bersumber dan tidak boleh bertentangan, dengan berpijak pada prinsip “tidak boleh satu detik pun ada peraturan perundang-undangan yang berpotensi melanggar konstitusi tanpa bisa diluruskan atau diuji melalui pengujian yudisial”.This article is discussed the institutional arrangement of regulation reviews in Indonesia. It’s begins with a discussion of the institutional problems and practice of regulations review and the design of institutional arrangement in the future. The results of the study shows several issues including: (1) institutions which are not ideal and contradicted with checks and balances system, it’s proofed by amount of institutions has authority about the functions, namely: Judicial review (Constitutional Court, Supreme Court), and Executive Review (Minister of Home Affairs and Governor; (2) the object of review doesn’t clear boundaries; (3) in practice, the problems of standard reviews is complicated, especially in the use of judging standard in the conflict of legal norm. The idea of institutional arrangement is designed for one institutionalization at the Constitutional Court, which is based on the argument: The Constitutional Court as the guardian of the Pancasila (ideology of state) and the 1945 Constitution, in the framework of institutional arrangement based on checks and balances system, realizing the sustainable in the heirarchy of regulation, in practice of formal review to reviewing regulations under a law, arrangements of regulations more systematic and comprehsnsive, regulations review is the entrance to see all the issues of it’s conficting in each hierarchy. On the other hand, the object in the system of regulation reviews is also not integrated according by the constitution, and it’s not in accordance with the arrangement system in hierarchy of the regulation and efforts to harmonize the legal norms. The constitutional system with the “supreme law of the land” paradigm requires that all the regulations below should be sourced and not be contradictions, with the principle of “no regulations may be conflict againts the constitution without judicial review.


2018 ◽  
Vol 54 ◽  
pp. 03021
Author(s):  
Rahadi Wasi Bintoro ◽  
Abdul Shomad ◽  
Trisadini Prasastinah Usanti

Circular issued by state institutions in the framework of the freies ermessen principle. Circular in administrative law is known as policy regulation/ belleidsregel. The Supreme Court as a state institution also has the authority to issue circular letters. This paper focused on the standard circular issued by the Supreme Court. This paper was legal research that was carried out with the statute approach and conceptual approach. Based on the analysis, circulars issued by the supreme court contained restrictions, namely that they should not influence the judge in examining the case.


2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammad Fauzan

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   


Solusi ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 266-273
Author(s):  
Eveline Fifiana

Every Indonesian citizen has the obligation to uphold the applicable law. Every implemented law has a demand for justice. Judicial power must exist in every democratic State of Law, tasked with upholding and overseeing the enactment of the applicable law and regulations (ius constitutum) in order to realize justice. Law without justice will be in vain, as a result, law will become invaluable before community. To answer the problems in this study, the researcher used a normative juridical approach, descriptive qualitative in nature. In this research, law enforcers, especially judges, must uphold the authority of the law and uphold the value of trust in society. The important prerequisites in upholding law and justice in the wolrd of justice is noble, clean, honest, professional, high integrity, high moral, and dignified judge. Supreme Court and Constitutional Court as judicial power holders, along with Judicial Commision in the scope of judiciary powers, not only have the authority to guide the judges but also have the authority to maintain the independency of judiciary powers from the influence of government and outside government parties by minimizing the subjectivity in recruitment process of prospective judges and supreme judges. The independency of judicial power is not enough, because law enforcers, especially “bad” judges can take refugee under the independency of judicial power.  To build an “ideal” Judge or Supreme Judge who will fulfill the people needs of justice, the Judge or Supreme Judge recruitment process conducted by Judical Commission need to be strict while increasing the control over the implementation of power to minimize the arbitrary acts and abusive judge’s power. High commitment, consistency, adhering to the principles and code of ethics in carrying out their duties will lead to a clean, authoritative judiciary in the eyes of the society so that the hope of upholding independent judicial power will be realized while at the same time bring improvements to the Indonesian justice situation.


2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 75
Author(s):  
Tri Mulyani

<p>Negara Indonesia adalah Negara hukum, artinya bahwa negara yang menempatkan hukum sebagai dasar kekuasaan negara dan penyelenggaraan kekuasaan tersebut dalam segala bentuknya dilakukan di bawah kekuasaan hukum. Sifat dari negara hukum hanya dapat ditunjukkan apabila alat-alat perlengkapan negara yaitu lembaga-lembaga negara bertindak menurut dan terikat kepada aturan-aturan yang telah ditetapkan. Lembaga Tinggi Negara yang dimaksud dalam penelitian ini adalah Lembaga Tinggi Negara yang nama, fungsi dan kewenanganya dibentuk berdasarkan Konstitusi atau Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945 yaitu: Presiden dan Wakil Presiden, Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat, Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat, Dewan Perwakilan Daerah, Mahkamah Agung, Mahkamah Konstitusi, dan Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan. Sehubungan dengan dasar pembentukan Lembaga Tinggi Negara adalah Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945, dan telah mengalami amandemen 4 kali maka struktur dan hubungan mereka dalam menjalakan tugas pemerintahan dari sebelum dan sesudah amandemen tentunya juga mengalami perubahan. Dengan pendekatan <em>yuridis normatif</em>, dan uraian yang diskriptif analisis, ditemukan jawaban bahwa struktur lembaga negara beserta hubungan diantara lembaga negara telah mengalami pergeseran setelah dilakukan amandemen. Pada dasarnya hubungan diantara lembaga negara tidak banyak mengalami perubahan. Namun perubahan itu justru tampak dalam struktur lembaga negaranya. Sebelum amandemen struktur lembaga negara terdiri dari MPR sebagai lembaga tertinggi, Presiden, DPR, DPA, BPK dan MA. Namun setelah dilakukan amandemen lembaga negara berkembang yaitu MPR, DPR, DPD, Presiden, MA, MK, dan BPK. Perbedaanya ada dipoint pengapusan istilah lembaga tertinggi, sehingga semua menjadi lembaga tinggi negara.</p><p> </p><p class="Default"><em>Indonesia is a country of law, meaning that the country as the law is the basis of state power and the implementation of the power in all its forms is done under the rule of law. The nature of the state law can only be shown if the scientific equipment is state state institutions and bound to act according to the rules that have been set. State Agency referred to in this research is the State Agency name, function and an arbitrary set up under the Constitution or the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia Year 1945, namely: President and Vice-President, People's Consultative Assembly, the House of Representatives, Regional Representatives Council, The Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court, and the Supreme Audit Agency. In connection with establishing the State Agency is the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia Year 1945, and has undergone amendments 4 times the structures and their relationship to run the task of the government before and after the amendment would also change. With normative juridical approach, and a description of the descriptive analysis, found the answer that the structure of state institutions as well as the relationship between the state institutions have experienced a shift after the amendment. Basically the relationship between the state institutions has not changed much. But it is precisely looked into the institutional structure of the country. Prior to the amendment of the structure of state institutions consist of the Assembly as the highest institution, President, Parliament, DPA, BPK and MA. However, after the amendment of the developing state institutions, namely the MPR, DPR, DPD, President, Supreme Court, Constitutional Court, and the CPC. No difference dipoint term elimination highest institution, so all became state institutions. </em></p><p class="Default"><em> </em></p>


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document