scholarly journals AKIBAT HUKUM PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI NOMOR 69/PUU-XIII/2015 TERHADAP HAK TANAH PELAKU KAWIN CAMPUR

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jihan Khairunnisa
Keyword(s):  
Land Ownership ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Court Ruling ◽  
Mixed Marriages ◽  
Ownership Of Land ◽  
To Receive

Land ownership for Indonesian citizens the result of mixed marriages without marriage agreement Indonesian citizen can only use the use rights and lease rights to buildings in the ownership of land. This study uses a normative juridical approach. It can be concluded that according to Law No. 5/1960 for Indonesian citizens, mixed marriages may own land with a status other than use rights and lease rights to buildings if there is a marriage agreement before or at the time of marriage. However, after the Constitutional Court ruling number 69 / PUU-XIII / 2015 gave a breath of fresh air for mixed marriages to still be able to receive their constitutional rights by making marriage agreements during the marriage.

scholarly journals Implementation Agreement By Mixed Marriage Based On Act No. 1 of 1974 Concerning Marriage After Constitutional Court Ruling No. 69 / PUU-XIII / 2015 (Study of Notary Role)

Jurnal Akta ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 829
Author(s):  
Riyanto Riyanto ◽  
Arief Cholil
Keyword(s):  
Legal Protection ◽  
Land Rights ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Mixed Marriage ◽  
Court Ruling ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Mixed Marriages ◽  
Legal Implications ◽  
Ownership Rights

Abstract. The bride and groom's candidate before the marriage takes place, can make a "Marriage Agreement" to provide legal certainty related to property and for legal protection against third parties. Primarily for mixed marriages, the bride and groom are subject to two different legal systems according to their nationality. , the agreement made by the Marriage Agreement has been amended by the Decision of the Constitutional Court Number: 69 / PUU-XIII / 2015 dated October 27, 2016. The positive implication for the intermarriage is that it can have land rights in the form of Ownership Rights (HM) and Right to Build (HGB) without having to divorce first. Then, this research intends to discuss the practice of the Implementation of Mixed Marriage Agreements based on Act No. 1 of 1974 concerning Marriage after the decision of the Constitutional Court Number: 69 / PUU-XIII / 2015. The purpose of this study was to describe the role of the notary in the deed Mating Agreement and its implementation after the decision of the Court in question, and to know the legal implications of the couples in mixed marriages. The method in this research is juridical empirical research methods.Keywords: Mating Agreement; Marriage Commingling; Deed; Decision of the Constitutional Court; Marriage Act.

scholarly journals PELAKSANAAN HAK WARIS ATAS TANAH BAGI SEORANG ANAK DARI PERKAWINAN CAMPURAN DENGAN PERJANJIAN KAWIN BERDASARKAN PERATURAN PERUNDANGAN DI INDONESIA

NOTARIUS ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 127
Author(s):  
Ulfia Wijaya ◽  
Fifiana Wisnaeni
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Land Rights ◽  
Land Ownership ◽  
Mixed Marriage ◽  
Dual Citizenship ◽  
Mixed Marriages ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Agrarian Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Ownership Of Land

The implementation of inheritance rights for children born of mixed marriage with a prenuptial agreement can not be executed before they are 18 (eighteen) years old or already married and they have declared themselves to choose to become an Indonesian citizens. With regard to the ownership of land rights, the Agrarian Law (UUPA) explicitly provides that only Indonesian citizens can own property rights to land as defined in Article 21 paragraph (1). This means that what can be the subject of property rights is only Indonesian citizens. The transfer of ownership of land ownership in any way to children born of mixed marriage will cause any form of the transfer to become null and void. When dual-citizen children obtain an inheritance from one parent in the form of land with a proprietary title, their right to inheritance is certainly not wiped out. However, they must wait until 18 (eighteen) years old and choose to become an Indonesian citizen then they have the right according to the rules. Keywords: Mixed Marriages, Dual Citizenship, Children's Rights With Dual Citizenships Abstrak Pelaksanaan hak waris atas tanah bagi seorang anak yang lahir dari perkawinan campuran dengan perjanjian kawin tidak dapat dilaksanakan sebelum anak tersebut berusia 18 (delapan belas) tahun atau sudah menikah dan anak tersebut telah menyatakan diri untuk memilih menjadi warga negara Indonesia. Berkaitan dengan kepemilikan hak atas tanah, UUPA secara tegas mengatur bahwa hanya WNI yang dapat memiliki hak milik atas tanah sebagaimana ditegaskan dalam Pasal 21 ayat (1). Ini berarti bahwa yang dapat menjadi subyek hak milik hanyalah WNI. Pengalihan kepemilikan hak milik atas tanah dengan cara apapun kepada anak yang lahir dari perkawinan campuran akan menyebabkan segala bentuk pengalihan tersebut menjadi batal demi hukum. Bilamana anak yang berkewarganegaraan ganda memperoleh warisan dari salah satu orang tuanya berupa tanah dengan status hak milik, maka hak anak tentang warisan tersebut tentunya tidak hapus. Akan tetapi ia harus menunggu sampai usia 18 (delapan belas) tahun, sampai memilih menjadi WNI maka barulah ia memiliki haknya sesuai peraturan yang berlaku.  Keyword: Perkawinan Campuran, Kewarganegaraan Ganda, Hak Waris Anak 

scholarly journals Perlindungan Hak Konstitusional Masyarakat Pesisir : Urgensi Harmonisasi Regulasi Pengelolaan Pesisir Terpadu

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 799
Author(s):  
Mohammad Mahrus Ali ◽  
Zaka Firma Aditya ◽  
Abdul Basid Fuadi
Keyword(s):  
Coastal Zone ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
Coastal Zone Management ◽  
Coastal Areas ◽  
Coastal Communities ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Integrated Coastal Zone Management ◽  
Zone Management

Sepuluh tahun yang lalu putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 3/PUU-VIII/2010 telah menegaskan bahwa  bahwa pemberian hak pengusahaan perairan pesisir (HP3) oleh pemerintah kepada pihak swasta bertentangan dengan konstitusi, terutama dengan Pasal 33 ayat (4) UUD 1945. Pembentuk undang-undang kemudian merespon putusan tersebut dengan merevisi UU Nomor 27 Tahun 2007 menjadi Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2014 tentang Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 27 Tahun 2007 tentang Pengelolaan Wilayah Pesisir dan Pulau-Pulau Kecil. Revisi tersebut telah mengubah Rezim HP3 dari UU 27/2007 menjadi rezim perizinan dalam UU 1/2014. Sayangnya, perubahan tersebut justru menimbulkan berbagai persoalan mulai dari konflik antara undang-undang serta peraturan dibawah undang-undang yang pada akhirnya sangat berpotensi merugikan hak-hak konstitusional masyarakat pesisir pantai. Penelitian ini memfokuskan pada aspek yuridis maupun sosiologis terkait perlindungan hak-hak konstitusional masyarakat pesisir pantai setelah Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 3/PUU-VIII/2010. Penelitian ini secara mendalam membahas mengenai tindaklanjut putusan MK a quo oleh pembentuk undang-undang, pemerintah pusat hingga pemerintah daerah dan stakeholder serta pemenuhan hak-hak konstitusional masyarakat pesisir pantai. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum normatif dengan cara meneliti Putusan MK Nomor 3/PUU-VIII/2010. Pembahasan secara deskriptif digunakan untuk memahami politik hukum pengelolaan wilayah pesisir sebagai upaya memenuhi hak-hak konstitusional masyarakat pesisir pantai. Disamping itu, Pengelolaan wilayah pesisir secara terpadu yang merupakan proses yang dinamis, multidisiplin, dan berulang untuk mempromosikan pengelolaan kawasan pesisir yang berkelanjutan. Termasuk seluruh siklus pengumpulan informasi, perencanaan, pengambilan keputusan, manajemen dan pemantauan implementasi. Ten years ago, the Constitutional Court Decision Number 3/PUU-VIII/2010 confirmed that the granting of concession rights for coastal waters (after this: HP3) by the government to private parties was contrary against the constitution, especially Article 33 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution. Legislators then respond to the decision to revise Law No. 27 of 2007 as Law No. 1 of 2014 on the Amendment of Law No. 27 of 2007 on the Management of Coastal Areas and Small Islands. The revision has changed the HP3 regime from Law 27/2007 to the licensing regime in Law 1/2014. Unfortunately, these changes would lead to various juridical problems ranging from conflict between the laws and regulations under legislation that ultimately is potentially detrimental to the constitutional rights of coastal communities. This research focuses on juridical and sociological aspects related to the coastal communities protection of constitutional rights after the Constitutional Court Decision Number 3/PUU-VIII/2010. This research in-depth discusses the follow-up of the Constitutional Court decision a quo by legislators, central government, local governments, stakeholders, and the fulfilment of the constitutional rights of coastal communities. This research is normative legal research by examining the Constitutional Court decision Number 3/PUU-VIII/2010. The descriptive discussion used to understand coastal zone management law's politics to fulfil the constitutional rights of coastal communities. Besides, integrated coastal zone management (Integrated Coastal Zone Management) is a dynamic process, multidisciplinary, and repeated to promote sustainable coastal areas' sustainable management. It includes the whole cycle of information collection, planning, decision-making, management, and implementation monitoring.

scholarly journals Kebebasan Hak Ijtihad Nikah Beda Agama Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 604
Author(s):  
Faiq Tobroni
Keyword(s):  
The State ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Interfaith Marriage ◽  
The Third ◽  
Interfaith Marriages ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
Marriage Laws ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
The Impact

This paper has three key issues. The first issue discusses the arguments constructed by applicant of judicial review (JR) to assess the constitutional rights’ violations caused by the application of Article 2 (1) UUP. The second issue discusses on how the Constitutional Court (MK) seated position of state associated marital affairs in the rejection of JR. The third issue discusses model of freedom of ijtihad (legal thought) on interfaith marriage as the impact of MK’s Decision. Based on    the discussion, regarding to the first issue, the applicant of JR assess the application of Article 2 (1) UUP has legitimized the state as the sole interpreters of religious teachings for a requirement validity of the marriage. According to the applicant,  the role is used by the state (The Office for Religious Affairs/KUA) to not accept interfaith marriage. This refusal led to the violation of some other constitutional rights. Furthermore, as the findings of the second issue, MK’s decision has placed   the real position of state not as interpreters of religious teachings, but merely to accommodate the results of religious scholars’s ijtihad regarding marriage into the state law. Thus, it is not true that the state has violated the constitutional right to more intervene the religious life of citizens. Last findings as the third issue, MK’s decision has affected the model of ijtihad freedom on interfaith marriage. Actually interfaith marriage can still be served through the Civil Registry Office (KCS). KCS could be an alternative way to facilitate the interfaith marriages for all religions in Indonesia. Special for KUA, the institution reject to record interfaith marriage.   In this way, it only accommodates freedom of ijtihad within the limits of ijtihad jama’i. KUA just accomodates ijtihad by institutions such as the Majelis Ulama Indonesia, Nahdlatul Ulama, Muhammadiyah and other similar institutions that reject interfaith marriage. Special for marriage in muslim community, ijtihad jama’i is better than ijtihad fardiy because the second could trigger the liberalization of marriage laws (temporary marriages, polygamy more than four, underage marriages and denial of recording).

scholarly journals What has the Constitutional Court Given Us? Afriforum v University of the Free State 2018 (4) BCLR 387 (CC)

Obiter ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mokgadi Margaret Mokgokong ◽  
Moses Retselisitsoe Phooko
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
South Africa ◽  
South African ◽  
Further Education ◽  
The State ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Official Language ◽  
National Party ◽  
The Right ◽  
To Receive

The history of South Africa is an unpleasant one. It was a society based on racial segregation with the promotion of Afrikaner culture and the Afrikaans language above all other languages. This can be traced to the architect of apartheid, the Afrikaner National Party, which introduced apartheid. Afrikaans-speaking people, through the Afrikaner National Party, dominated South Africa politically. Their language too, was promoted above all other languages. For example, Afrikaans enjoyed more privileges than other languages in that it was used for drafting laws, as the language of record in the courts and was also the only compulsory subject for learning. The apartheid government, through its racial policies, used the Afrikaans language as a tool to control Black South Africans in almost all spheres of life, including education, which had to be undertaken in Afrikaans. It is therefore no surprise that there were five universities that offered education mainly in Afrikaans. These are Stellenbosch University, University of the Free State, University of Pretoria, Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education (now North-West University) and Randse Afrikaanse Universiteit (now University of Johannesburg). The use of the Afrikaans language as an instrument for social control was not sustainable. The new constitutional dispensation ushered in an era wherein respect for fundamental human rights and freedoms is at the top of the South African agenda. The right to further education is constitutionally recognised in section 29(1)(b) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. Section 29(2) of the Constitution further recognises and embraces the diversity of South African society and provides that “everyone has the right to receive education in the official language or languages of their choice in public education institutions where that education is reasonably practicable” (s 29(b) of the Constitution). The State has an obligation to take reasonable measures on a progressive basis to ensure that further education is available and accessible (s 29(1)(b) of the Constitution). In ensuring “effective access to and implementation” of the right to further education, It is notable that, in its endeavour to make further education available and accessible, the State is required to consider several factors such as language policies. In an effort to facilitate the realisation of the right to further education, the Higher Education Act (101 of 1997) was enacted in order inter alia to “redress past discrimination and ensure representivity and equal access to higher education institutions” (preamble to the Act).In the UFS case (CC), the Constitutional Court applied section 29(1)(b) of the Constitution, which provides for the right to further education and the “right to receive education in the official language or languages of [one’s] choice”. This note centres on this decision and seeks to critically discuss and analyse both the majority and minority decisions of the Constitutional Court. The question presented is whether the Constitutional Court has given the public a solution to the issue surrounding the use of either Afrikaans or English as a language medium of instruction in the higher education sector and what the effect of this has been on the development of other languages. The case note is divided into five sections. The facts of the case, the issues put before the court for consideration and the finding of the court are discussed in part 2. Part 3 contains an analysis of the minority and majority judgments. Part 4 considers whether the court has given us any solutions. Part 5 sets out the authors’ recommendations and their conclusions.

SOCIAL PROTECTION ASAN IMPORTANT PART OF HUMAN PROGRESS AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIETY

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (5) ◽  
pp. 57-62
Author(s):  
Makhmudjon Ziyadullaev ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Social Security ◽  
State Policy ◽  
Social Protection ◽  
The State ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
The Republic ◽  
State Pension ◽  
To Receive

This article discusses proposals for making regardingchanges to the current law "On state pension provision of citizens", reforms carried out in the field of social protection of the population of the Republic of Uzbekistan, on the constitutional rights of citizens, especially pensioners, to receive social security, revising the criteria for determining the purpose and size social payments, the development of an integral state policy in the field of social protection of the population and the determination of the state agencyresponsible for its implementation

A TALE OF TWO SUPREMACIES, FOUR GREENGROCERS, A FISHMONGER, AND THE SEEDS OF A CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

2002 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 499-544
Author(s):  
Amanda Perreau-Saussine
Keyword(s):  
City Council ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
The Uk

The phrase “hierarchy of norms” sounds alien or continental to the ears of most British constitutional lawyers: generations have been taught that, in order to respect the sovereignty of Parliament, they should compare statutes only in temporal terms, preferring a more recent statute over incompatible older ones. In Thoburn v. Sunderland City Council and related appeals [2002] EWHC 195 (Admin), [2002] 3 W.L.R. 247, four greengrocers and a fishmonger, backed by the UK Independence Party, unsuccessfully invoked this doctrine of implied repeal to challenge the validity of the UK’s messy implementation of European Metrication Directives. If obiter dicta by Laws L.J. are followed, it will be not for our political representatives but for our courts to decide whether to prefer older statutes protecting “constitutional rights” over more recent statutes, and to rank constitutional rights.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document