scholarly journals Tinjauan Yuridis Pembatasan Upaya Hukum Kasasi Dalam Kasus Gugatan Terhadap Keputusan Pejabat Daerah

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 67-82
Author(s):  
Muhibuddin Muhibuddin ◽  
Mahdi Syahbandir ◽  
M. Nur Rasyid
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Justice System ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Substances ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Law Making

Pasal 45A Ayat (2) huruf c Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 2004 tentang Mahkamah Agung membatasi pengajuan upaya hukum kasasi terhadap perkara tata usaha negara yang objek gugatannya berupa keputusan pejabat daerah. Pembatasan ini menimbulkan ketidakadilan bagi pencari keadilan (yustisiable) yang ingin mendapatkan keadilan jika pada tingkat pertama dan banding tidak diterima gugatannya. Di samping itu, pembatasan tersebut telah merubah sistem peradilan di Indonesia yang terdiri dari tingkat pertama, banding dan kasasi. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui alasan pembatasan upaya hukum dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 2004, tinjauan keadilan kepada warga negara dan asas-asas pembentukan perundang-undangan yang baik. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian yuridis normatif  yang ingin mengidentifikasi dari aspek hukumnya. Data yang digunakan terdiri bahan hukum primer, sekunder dan tersier. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa pembatasan pengajuan upaya hukum untuk mengurangi penumpukan perkara di Mahkamah Agung. Akibat pembatasan tersebut sangat merugikan warga negara yang ingin memperjuangkan haknya dan tidak mencerminkan asas-asas pembentukan peraturan perundang-undangan yang baik.Article 45 (2) point C of the Act Number 5, 2004 on the Supreme Court Especially Limiting judicial review on the decision of the object of civil administrative state’s case which its lawsuit is the decision of officials in district, municipality or provincial officials. The limitation is not fair towards every justice seekers who are willing to obtain justices in the first court and the court of appeal have not tried the cases fairly. Apart from that the limitation has changed the justice system in Indonesia consisting of the first instance court, the court of appeal, and review court of the Supreme Court. This research aims to know the reasons of such limitation in the Act Number 5, 2004, justice review for citizens and principles of well law making. This is juridical normative research, which is trying to identify legal substances. The sources of data are secondary that are primary, secondary and tertiary legal sources. The research shows that the limitation of judicial review is to reduce the number of cases at the Supreme Court. The result of the nullification causes loss for citizens who are trying to fight for their rights and it does not reflect the principle of well law making process.

Estoppel

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth Hamer
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Res Judicata ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Chartered Accountants ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Disciplinary Committee

The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of cause of action estoppel applied to successive complaints before a professional disciplinary body, that disciplinary proceedings were civil in nature and that therefore the principles of res judicata applied, and that there was no reason why cause of action estoppel should not apply to successive sets of proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW). The Supreme Court so held in allowing an appeal by C-W, a chartered accountant, against the Court of Appeal, which had upheld the dismissal of his application for judicial review of the decision by the Committee to refuse to dismiss a second complaint based on the same facts of a first complaint that had been dismissed on the merits.

scholarly journals PROBLEMATIKA PENINJAUAN KEMBALI DALAM SISTEM PERADILAN PIDANA PASCA PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI DAN PASCA SEMA RI No. 7 TAHUN 2014 (Suatu Analisa Yuridis Dan Asas-Asas Dalam Hukum Peradilan Pidana)

2016 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 106
Author(s):  
Seno Wibowo Gumbira
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
Criminal Justice Process

Abstrak Permasalahan upaya hukum luar biasa pada Peninjauan Kembali khususnya pada proses peradilan pidana di Indonesia Pasca Putusan judicial review Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 34/PPU-XI/2013 dan SEMA RI No 7 Tahun 2014 yang dikeluarkan oleh Mahkamah Agung RI sama-sama memiliki permasalahan yuridis dan bertentangan dengan asas-asas baik dalam lingkup sistem peradilan pidana dan asas ilmu perundang-undangan di Indonesia, asas tersebut meliputi asas ne bis in idem, asas peradilan cepat, sederhana dan biaya ringan, asas litis finiri oportet, dan sedangkan pada ilmu perundang-undangan asas lex superior derogate legi inferior. Dapat juga dikatakan bahwa judicial review Mahkamah Konstitusi berpotensi merusak pilar hukum karena jika menyatakan suatu ketentuan hukum hanya satu undang-undang saja, yang mana peraturan perundang-undangan yang 1 bertentangan dengan peraturan perundang-undang lainnya seperti contoh Putusan MK Nomor 34/PPU-XI/2013 pada Pasal 268 ayat 3 Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1981 dinyatakan tidak memiliki kekuatan hukum tetap tentang Peninjauan Kembali hanya dilakukan 1 kali saja, sedangkan pada Pasal 24 ayat 2 Undang-Undang No. 48 Tahun 2009 tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman dengan Pasal 66 ayat 1 Undang-Undang No. 3 Tahun 2009 tentang Mahkamah Agung, kedua instrument hukum tersebut menyatakan bahwa pengajuan Peninjauan Kembali hanya dapat diajukan 1 kali. Solusi agar tidak menimbulkan problematika adalah bahwa  Mahkamah Agung tidak perlu menerbitkan SEMA RI No 7 Tahun 2014 tersebut, cukup menggunakan Undang-Undang Kekuasaan Kehakiman dan Undang-Undang Mahkamah Agung yang menyatakan Peninjauan kembali hanya 1 kali, selain itu perlu optimalisasi pembuktian dalam proses peradilan pidana oleh semua pihak. Kata Kunci: judicial review, Peninjauan Kembali, Sistem Peradilan Pidana. Abstract Problems of extraordinary legal remedy on Reconsideration, especially in the criminal justice process in Indonesia following the Ruling of judicial review of the Constitutional Court Number 34 / PPU-XI / 2013 and SEMA Decree No. 7 of 2014 issued by the Supreme Court had the same problem  juridical in contradictory with the principles both within the criminal justice system and the principle of the science of law in Indonesia, those principles include the principle of ne bis in idem, the principle of justice which one quick, simple and low cost, the principle of litis finiri oportet, It is on the principle of lex superior derogate legi inferior. It can also be said that the judicial review of the Constitutional Court has the potential to undermine the pillars of legal systems as when stating a legal provision is only base on one law, in which is in fact the legislation is incontracdictory with other laws such as of Constitutional Court Decision No. 34 / PPU-XI / 2013 on Article 268 paragraph 3 of Law No. 8 of 1981 that have no binding legal force, meanwhile in Article 24 paragraph 2 of Law No. 48 Year 2009 regarding Judicial Power with Article 66 paragraph 1 of Law No. 3 of 2009 on the Supreme Court, both legal instrument states that the filing of a judicial review can only be submitted one time. A solution that does not cause the problems is that the Supreme Court did not need to issue SEMA Decree No. 7 of 2014 the court simple use the Law of Judicial Power and the Law of the Supreme Court which states Reconsideration should be only one time in addition to the necessary optimize evidence of proof in the criminal justice process by all Parties. Keywords: judicial review, Reconsideration, the Criminal Justice System

scholarly journals Les erreurs de droit dans l'exercice d'une compétence

2005 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 505-516
Author(s):  
Denis Lemieux
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Analysis ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Face ◽  
Legal Foundations ◽  
Court Of Appeal

In this paper, the author deals with the legal foundations of judicial control over errors of law allegedly committed by administrative authorities. The paper also considers the scope of error of law on the face of the record as a ground of review. More specifically, the author has examined all the decisions rendered by the Quebec Court of Appeal, the Federal Court, and the Supreme Court of Canada in 1980 and 1981 where there was an allegation of error of law. From this statistical analysis, the author describes and explains the different, and seemingly contradictory, results achieved by these different jurisdictions. The author adds some comments on the constitutionality of privative clauses excluding judicial review of non-jurisdictional errors of law.

scholarly journals PEMBATASAN HAK KASASI DAN KONSEKUENSI HUKUM BAGI PENCARI KEADILAN DALAM SISTEM PERADILAN TATA USAHA NEGARA DI INDONESIA

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 299
Author(s):  
Agus Budi Susilo
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Legal Problems ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Administrative Justice

There were appeal legal effort, cassation and judicial review on Administrative Court. After the Supreme Court Act article 45A paragraph (2) letter c was applied, it was determined that not all administrative settlement dispute can be filled to cassation legal effort. The setting restriction poses legal problems to justice seekers. This article aims to study the solution of cassation rights setting restrictions so that it can be mutual for administrative justice seekers. Based on the analysis that has been done it can be concluded that the regulation on Supreme Court Act article 45A paragraph (2) letter c Act number 5 2014 was not clear in procedures and substantive. Thus the setting restriction in cassation legal effort has to consider the aspect of quality and cases type.Keywords : The restriction of cassation right, Administrative Justice System,justice seeker

Constitutional aspects of the reform of the Polish justice system in 2017–2018

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 276-293
Author(s):  
Mateusz Radajewski
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Global Scale ◽  
National Council ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
European Regulations

Summary The article concerns the issue of constitutionality of the reform of the justice system in Poland in 2017–2018, which resulted in significant changes of the functioning of the National Council of the Judiciary and the Supreme Court. When discussing the reform of the Supreme Court, the author first of all points to the constitutional problems associated with the premature retirement of some of its judges, which is also connected with the interruption of the six-year term of the First President of the Supreme Court. A separate issue discussed in the article is the introduction to the Supreme Court the lay judges, which is a unique phenomenon on the global scale. The analyses lead the author to formulate final conclusions, also referring to the European regulations and to refer to the unconstitutionality of the solutions adopted by the Polish parliament.

A Note on Mandela v Executors, Estate Nelson Mandela 2018 (4) SA 86 (SCA) and the Conundrum around the Customary Marriage between Nelson and Winnie Mandela

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sipho Stephen Nkosi
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
The State ◽  
The Other ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
Eastern Cape ◽  
High Court ◽  
Nelson Mandela ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Court Of Appeal

The note is about the appeal lodged by the late Mrs Winnie Madikizela-Mandela to the SCA against the decision of the Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha, dismissing her application for review in 2014. In that application, she sought to have reviewed the decision of the Minister of Land Affairs, to transfer the now extended and renovated Qunu property to Mr Mandela and to register it in his name. Because her application was out of time, she also applied for condonation of her delay in making the application. The court a quo dismissed both applications with costs, holding that there had been an undue delay on her part. Mrs Mandela then approached the Supreme Court of Appeal, for special leave to appeal the decision of the court a quo. Two questions fell for decision by the SCA: whether there was an unreasonable and undue delay on Mrs Mandela’s part in instituting review proceedings; and whether the order for costs was appropriate in the circumstances of the case. The SCA held that there was indeed an unreasonable delay (of seventeen years). Shongwe AP (with Swain, Mathopo JJA, Mokgothloa and Rodgers AJJA concurring) held that the fact that there had been an undue delay does not necessarily mean that an order for costs should, of necessity, particularly where, as in this case, the other litigant is the state. It is the writer’s view that two other ancillary points needed to be raised by counsel and pronounced on by the Court: (a) the lawfulness and regularity of the transfer of the Qunu property to Mr Mandela; and (b) Mrs Mandela’s status as a customary-law widow—in relation to Mr Mandela.

The Right to Housing: Challenges Associated with the ‘Waiting List System’ Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality V Various Occupiers, Eden Park Extension 5 2014 3 SA 23 (SCA)

2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 112-121
Author(s):  
Shamier Ebrahim
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Waiting Lists ◽  
The State ◽  
Waiting List ◽  
Allocation Process ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Court Of Appeal

The right to adequate housing is a constitutional imperative which is contained in section 26 of the Constitution. The state is tasked with the progressive realisation of this right. The allocation of housing has been plagued with challenges which impact negatively on the allocation process. This note analyses Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality v Various Occupiers, Eden Park Extension 51 which dealt with a situation where one of the main reasons provided by the Supreme Court of Appeal for refusing the eviction order was because the appellants subjected the unlawful occupiers to defective waiting lists and failed to engage with the community regarding the compilation of the lists and the criteria used to identify beneficiaries. This case brings to the fore the importance of a coherent (reasonable) waiting list in eviction proceedings. This note further analyses the impact of the waiting list system in eviction proceedings and makes recommendations regarding what would constitute a coherent (reasonable) waiting list for the purpose of section 26(2) of the Constitution.

scholarly journals Deservingness in Judicial Discourse. An Analysis of the Legal Reasoning Adopted in Dutch Case Law on Irregular Migrant Families’ Access to Shelter

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Lieneke Slingenberg
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Reasoning ◽  
Migrant Families ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Discourse ◽  
Major Shift ◽  
New Interpretation ◽  
Irregular Migrant ◽  
Court Of Appeal

In September 2012, the Dutch Supreme Court upheld a judgment of the Hague Court of Appeal that the eviction from basic shelter of a mother and her minor children, who did not have legal residence in the Netherlands, was unlawful. This ruling was instigated by a radically new interpretation of the European Social Charter’s personal scope and caused a major shift in Dutch policy. This article provides a case study into the legal reasoning adopted by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. It argues that, instead of relying on legal doctrinal reasoning for justifying the outcome, both courts referred to factors that the general public relies on to assess people’s deservingness of welfare. This finding raises fundamental questions about the relationship between human rights law and deservingness; and calls, therefore, for further research into the relevance of deservingness criteria in judicial discourse.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document