DEKADENSI PEMILIHAN HAKIM AGUNG OLEH DPR RI

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

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

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

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

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

The Role of Courts in Rifted Democracies

1999 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 216-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Gavison
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Life ◽  
The Political ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Independent Judiciary ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Harsh Criticism

A discussion of the role of courts in Israel today demands some introductory remarks. The Supreme Court and the President of the Supreme Court enjoy great acclaim and respect within Israel and abroad, but have recently come under attack from a variety of sources. These attacks are often confused, and many of them are clearly motivated by narrow partisan interests and an inherent objection to the rule of law and judicial review. But these motives do not necessarily weaken the dangers which the attacks pose to the legitimacy of the courts in general, and the Supreme Court in particular, in Israel's public life. The fact that in some sectors extremely harsh criticism of the court is seen to be an electoral boost, testifies to the serious and dangerous nature of the threat. This situation creates a dilemma for those who want a strong and independent judiciary, believing it is essential for freedom and democracy, but who also believe that, during the last two decades, the courts have transgressed limits they should respect. The dilemma becomes especially acute when the political echo sounds out in one's criticism, and when one is part of the group that believes that the legal and the judicial systems have made some contribution to the prevalence of these hyperbolic and dangerous attacks, as I am.

scholarly journals Powers and Limits of State during COVID-19 Pandemic: a Critical Appraisal

Yuridika ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 663
Author(s):  
Iwan Satriawan ◽  
Devi Seviyana
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Balance Of Power ◽  
The State ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
State Of Emergency ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Power Limits ◽  
The Government

The research aims to analyze the power and limit of the state and whether Indonesia has properly adopted the concept of powers and limits during state emergency of COVID-19 pandemic. The method of the research was normative legal research which used statute and case approach were employed for data analysis. The result shows that a state may apply some types of power in an emergency condition. However, in using its powers, the government must consider principle of limits in a state of emergency. In fact, Indonesia does not properly adopt the balance of power and limit in the state of emergency during COVID-19 pandemic. It is true that the government may take actions to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the State cannot exceed the limitations of using powers in accordance with state emergency principle. There was a tendency to exceed the limits by the State during the pandemic. The State has violated some state of emergency principles during COVID-19 pandemic such as temporary, the rule of law, necessity, proportionally, intangibility, constitutionalism, harmony, and supervision. The research recommends that the Government and the House of Representatives (the DPR) in the future should obey the state of emergency principles, particularly in terms of state power limits to respect constitutional principles and rule of law. In addition, individuals, groups of people, or organizations may submit judicial review of laws or regulations that violate the state of emergency principles in handling pandemic in the light of protecting the fundamental rights of citizens.

scholarly journals The Region Governance Review of Barru Regency to Actualize Good and Clean Governments

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 61-69
Author(s):  
Aksah Kasim ◽  
Andi Heridah
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Good Governance ◽  
Regional Governance ◽  
Regional Autonomy ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Strategic Vision ◽  
The Government

The factors of the region governance review of Barru regency to actualize good governance and clean government are the region the government have not applied the equity properly and optimally, uphold the rule of law, worked effectively, effectiveness, and accountability, and formulated and implemented the strategic vision. This study is expected to explain, find, and describe the regional governance review in Barru Regency to actualize for good governance and clean government in the implementation of regional autonomy.

scholarly journals The Rule of Law in the Middle East and the Islamic World

2001 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 167-171
Author(s):  
Mohammad Fadel
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Middle East ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Average Length ◽  
The United States ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Critical Perspective ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Varying Length ◽  
The Government

This work grew out of a series of lectures that were delivered over atwo-year period between 1996 and 1998 at the Centre of Islamic andMiddle Eastern Law (CIMEL) at the School of Oriental and AfricanStudies (SOAS), University of London, on the genera] subject of the rule oflaw in the Middle East and Islamic countries. Subsequently, materials wereadded dealing particularly with issues relating to human rights law. Thecontributors to this work are a combination of legal academics, human rights activists, lawyers and judges, who hale from various countries in theArab world, Iran, the United States, Great Britain and Germany.There are a total of fourteen separate chapters, of varying length andquality. The book is not lengthy - including notes and authors’ biographies,it is 180 pages long. The average length of each chapter is between ten andfifteen pages. Despite the diversity of countries surveyed, all the essays areconcerned with generic questions regarding the rule of law, whether in atheoretical sense, viz., whether the notion that legitimate governmentalaction is limited to those acts that are deemed lawful by a pre-existing setor rules, or in a practical sense, viz., assuming that the formal legal regimeof a given state recognizes the rule of law in a theoretical sense, whetherthe coercive apparatus of the state in fact recognizes legal limitations onits conduct.Perhaps the most interesting (it is certainly the most lengthy, at 35 pages),and most important, essay in this work is the very fiit one, authored byAdel Omar Sherif, an Egyptian judge, wherein the author provides a digestof the landmark decisions of the Egyptian Supreme Constitutional Court.While the work can be criticized for taking on the appearance of a meresurvey of decisions, without taking a critical perspective to the Court’sprecedents, it is nonetheless a very valuable contribution for those lawyersand scholars who cannot read Arabic but nonetheless wish to gain insightinto Egypt’s legal culture. The modest task of relating the decisions ofEgypt’s Supreme Constitutional Court is especially important given thecliches regarding the absence of effective judicial institutions in the Arabworld. Sherifs contribution effectively dispels that myth. His article revealsthe Egyptian Supreme Constitutional Court to be a vibrant institution thattakes its constitutional duties seriously, and discharges those duties withintegrity, and when it finds that the government has acted unlawfully, it willstrike down the offensive legislation, or rule against the government ...

The oath of a judge – oath of office and judicial symbol

2021 ◽  
pp. 85-92
Author(s):  
O. Kravchuk ◽  
I. Ostashchuk
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Symbolic Action ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Conscious Choice ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
The Moment ◽  
First Time

The oath of a judge as an oath of office and as an element of judicial symbolism is considered in the article. The oath of a judge belongs to the categories of oaths of office, taken by an official upon taking office. At the same time, it belongs to the judicial oaths used in the justice process and is an element of judicial symbols. The oath of a judge as an oath of office symbolizes the endowment of a judge as an official by the state (judicial) power, the moment of his acquisition of powers (it is the inauguration ceremony), and the duty of a judge as an official to perform his duties properly. The oath of a judge as a judicial symbol represents a public and solemn obligation of the judge to exercise a fair trial in all its manifestations, including: independence and impartiality of the court, adversarial proceedings, equality of arms, and the rule of law. The judge takes the oath in a solemn atmosphere in the presence of senior officials (in Ukraine – in the presence of the President of Ukraine). It is an important ritual – a symbol of giving a person judicial power. The oath itself is a symbolic action of conscious choice of responsible and impartial observance of the law in the professional functions of realization of the rule of law for the good of all people. The coronavirus pandemic has shown that gathering a large number of people in one room can be problematic, so the oath ceremony was held even outdoors. It is stated that holding a ceremony in one of the judicial bodies, for example, in the premises of the Supreme Court or (subject to quarantine restrictions) in the territory of the Supreme Court may symbolize the independence of the judiciary and each judge from other branches of power. The peculiarity of the oath of a judge in Ukraine is its one-time nature. It should be taken only by a person first appointed to the position of a judge. In case of an appointment or transfer to another court, the judge shall not take the oath again. In this aspect, the oath of a judge is similar to the oath of a civil servant, which is taken only by persons recruited for the first time.

Canadian Exclusion Jurisprudence post-Febles

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Molly Joeck
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Refugee Status ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Refugee Protection ◽  
Refugee Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
International Refugee Law

Abstract This article examines the state of Canadian refugee law since the decision of the Supreme Court in Febles v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) [2014] 3 SCR 431. Drawing upon an analysis of a set of decisions of the Immigration and Refugee Board, the administrative tribunal tasked with refugee status determination in Canada, the article seeks to determine whether administrative decision makers are heeding the guidance of Febles when excluding asylum seekers from refugee protection on the basis of serious criminality pursuant to article 1F(b) of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. In doing so, it examines the controversy around article 1F(b) since its inception across various jurisdictions and amongst academic commentators, situating Febles within that controversy in order to demonstrate that the Supreme Court’s reluctance to clearly set out the purpose underlying article 1F(b) is in step with a longstanding tendency to understand the provision as serving a gatekeeping function, that prevents criminalized non-citizens from obtaining membership in our society. It argues that by omitting to set out a clear and principled standard by which asylum seekers can be excluded from refugee protection pursuant to article 1F(b), the Supreme Court failed to live up to a thick understanding of the rule of law. It concludes by calling for a reassertion of the rule of law into exclusion decision making, both nationally and internationally, in order to ensure that the legitimacy of the international refugee law regime is maintained.

LEGAL JUSTICE IN PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT PRACTICE BETWEEN INDONESIA AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 465
Author(s):  
Hanif Fudin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
The United States ◽  
Scientific Article ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
Republican Government

The constitution is approved as a law capable of guaranteeing human rights and protection of the constitution and past coordination, as well as being the corpus of the administration of the rule of law entity itself. Regarding the state of Indonesia and the United States, if examined by these two countries, they have similarities in the form of republican government or presidential system of government. However, on the contrary, in the impeachment transition, the two countries appear to be dichotomous both formally and materially. Therefore, this scientific article discusses reviewing the impeachment provisions of the Presidents of the two countries who agree to develop agreements and principles in checks and balances in trying to actualize the value of the country's legal justice. Therefore, in approving the discourse of research methods, descriptive-comparative methods are used with normative-philosophical and comparative-critical discussions. On that basis, this study discusses the practice of presidential impeachment in Indonesia to consider more legal justice, because it is through a legal process involving the Constitutional Court which implements practices in the United States that only involve the Senate and the House of Representatives which incidentally is a political institution. It considers the constitution in the basic law of the country.

The Rule of Law and Good Governance

2019 ◽  
pp. 75-90
Author(s):  
Henk Addink
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Good Governance ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Government ◽  
Continental Tradition

The concept of the rule of law has different—common law and continental—historical roots and traditional perspectives. The common law tradition is more focused on limiting the powers of the state, whereas the continental tradition focuses on not just to limit but also to empower the government. But both systems have a focus on the rule of law. The rule of law in the classical liberal tradition is based on four elements: legality, division and balance of powers, independent judicial control, and protection of fundamental rights. The differences between rule of law and rechtsstaat are: different concepts of the state, mixed legal systems and different approaches of a constitution, and different perspectives on human rights. There are two levels of development: a model in which law is a way of structuring and restricting the power of the state, the second level is more subjective and has important individual positions. The concept of good governance related to these developments makes clear the need to broaden the concept of the rule of law.

An Overview of Good Governance

2019 ◽  
pp. 15-24
Author(s):  
Henk Addink
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Good Governance ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Institutional Framework ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Administrative Legislation ◽  
The Government

Good governance is needed because of legislative gaps, prevention of corruption, maladministration, and mismanagement, and fragmentation of administrative law norms. The concept of good governance has been developed in addition to aspects which can already be found in the rule of law and democracy concepts but are also related to the institutional framework of the government. The term ‘government’ is used for all the powers in the state; the administration is only one of these powers. These powers must fulfil certain norms, principles which sometimes are unwritten and developed by the judiciary or the ombudsman but more and more codified in the frame of the general (administrative) legislation. All the institutions of the government are involved in the development of these principles of good governance. There is not only a separation between the powers of the state, but more and more there are interactions between these powers in the development of principles of good governance and, hence, there is a balance between these principles. Therefore, there are different producers and sources of good governance.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document