scholarly journals Dualisme Judicial Review Peraturan Perundang-Undangan di Indonesia

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 318
Author(s):  
Nanang Al Hidayat ◽  
Mela Sari
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Conflict Of Laws ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Regulatory Bodies ◽  
Laws And Regulations

Based on the provisions of Article 24A paragraph 1 of the 1945 Constitution and Article 24C paragraph 1 of the 1945 Constitution, there is a dualism of judicial institutions authorized to decide the judicial review of conflict of laws and regulations, namely the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court. This study aims to find out how to regulate the judicial review of legislation in Indonesia. The research method used in this paper is the normative juridical. The results of the study showed that the dualism of statutory regulatory bodies resulted in inconsistencies in providing decisions related to the prevailing laws and regulations in Indonesia. Whereas legislation is arranged hierarchically and has a proportion of certain content material that must be tested consistently in one institution only to provide a legal certainty for the community. Berdasarkan ketentuan dalam Pasal 24A ayat 1 UUD 1945  dan Pasal 24C ayat 1 UUD 1945 terjadi dualisme lembaga kehakiman yang berwenang memutus judicial review konflik peraturan perundang-undangan yaitu Mahkamah Agung dan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui bagaimana pengaturan judicial review peraturan perundang-undangan di Indonesia. Metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam tulisan ini adalah yuridis normatif. Hasil penelitian menunjukan dualisme lembaga pengujian peraturan perundang-undangan menyebabkan inkonsistensi dalam memberikan putusan terkait permasalahan peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku di Indonesia. Padahal peraturan perundang-undangan itu tersusun secara hirarkis dan mempunyai proporsi materi muatan tertentu sehingga harus diuji secara konsisten dalam satu lembaga saja agar memberikan suatu kepastian hukum bagi masyarakat.

scholarly journals TITIK SINGGUNG WEWENANG MAHKAMAH AGUNG DENGAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 17
Author(s):  
Saldi Isra
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Hierarchical System ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Legal Uncertainty ◽  
Laws And Regulations

The mixing of authority between the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court has raised a range of issues. In turn, there is the contact authority of the two institutions which could lead to the occurrence of legal uncertainty. In connection with the authority testing regulations, for example, although the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court have the same right to test the legislation, but with different types and hierarchy of legislation being tested, then the interpretation of the rules of the legislation for which they were these institutions must be subject to a hierarchical system of laws and regulations that apply. Therefore, the validity of the norm is derived from the legislation is higher. Moreover, any decision of the judicial review of the UUD, this decision is erga omnes, including for judges of the Supreme Court and judges of the court under the Supreme Court.Keywords : Authority, Constitutional Court, Supreme Court

scholarly journals JUDICIAL REVIEW SEBAGAI SARANA PERLINDUNGAN HAK-HAK ASASI WARGA NEGARA

2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (22) ◽  
pp. 170-181
Author(s):  
Safi’ Safi’
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Recent Time ◽  
Public Acceptance ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Community Groups ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Laws And Regulations

Observing the development of public acceptance of the substance of the laws that were generated in recent time, the right of judicial review of an option that can not be avoided for the 'correct' errors that might occur in a legal product to guarantee the protection of constitutional rights of citizens. The tendency in this direction can be seen from the desire of some community groups to apply for judicial review and claim that they are legal products containing controversial value both to the Supreme Court nor the Constitutional Court. If prior to the amendment of the 1945 Constitution, laws and regulations that can be petitioned for review of material just under the Act against the Constitution, but after the 1945 amendment, the legislation level as the Act was that the Act and also Perpu material can be petitioned for review to the Constitutional Court.

scholarly journals PENGATURAN TENTANG PENYELESAIAN KONFLIK NORMA ANTARA PERATURAN MENTERI TERHADAP UNDANG-UNDANG

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (8) ◽  
pp. 1191
Author(s):  
Maria Virginia Usfunan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Legal Consequences ◽  
Laws And Regulations

Tujuan penelitian ini untuk mengetahui bagaimana pengaturan tentang penyelesaian tentang konflik norma antara peraturan menteri terhadap undang-undang dan unruk mengetahui bagaimana sifat putusan mahkamah agung dalam hak uji material. Metode yang digunakan adalah metode penelitian hukum normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan dan pendekatan konsep. Pengaturan tentang penyelesaian konflik norma antara Peraturan Menteri Terhadap Undang-Undang, metode penyelesaian konflik norma itu dengan digunakannya asas lex superior derogate lex inferior ini, yang digunakan dengan terjadinya konflik norma antara UU Peraturan Perundang-Undangan dengan Permenkumham Nomor 2 Tahun 2019 terkait pengaturan penyelesaian konflik norma antara peraturan menteri dengan Undang-Undang, maka berdasarkan asas tersebut yang digunakan adalah UU Peraturan Perundang-Undangan, sehingga Permenkumham Nomor 2 Tahun 2019 harus dikesampingkan. Maka, Pengaturan mengenai Penyelesaian Konflik Norma Antara Peraturan Menteri Terhadap Undang-Undang, menjadi kewenangan Mahkamah Agung berdasarkan Pasal 9 UU Peraturan Perundang-Undangan. Dan Sifat Putusan Mahkamah Agung dalam Hak Uji Materiil dalam memberikan putusannya yang pada prinsipnya yang memiliki konsekuensi hukum aturan tersebut apabila terbukti secara sah dan meyakinkan bertentangan dengan aturan di atasnya maka aturan tersebut akan menjadi tidak sah serta tidak berlaku, dan menjadi tanggungjawab instansi terkait untuk mencabutnya. The purpose of the study is to find how adjustment of the settlement of norm conflicts between Ministerial Regulations toward the Constitution and to find out how the nature of the Supreme Court decision in the right of judicial review. The method used was normative legal research method with the legislation approach and concept approach. Adjustment on resolving norms of conflict between Ministerial Regulations toward the Constitution, the method of resolving norms conflicts by using the principle of lex superior derogate lex inferior, which was used in the norm conflicts between the Constitution on Laws and Regulations with Minister of Law and Human Rights Regulation Number 2 of 2019 in relation to conflict resolution arrangements the norm between Ministerial Regulations and the Constitution, then based on the principle used was the Constitution on Laws and Regulations, so Minister of Law and Human Rights Regulation Number 2 of 2019 must be set aside. Thus, the adjustment on resolving norms of conflict between Ministerial Regulations toward the Constitution became authority of the Supreme Court based on Article 9 of the Constitution on Laws and Regulations. And the nature of the Supreme Court's Decision in the Right to Judge Material in providing its decision which in principle had legal consequences of the rule if it was proven legally and convincingly contrary to the rules above, the rule would be invalid and not applicable, and it was the responsibility of related agencies to revoke it.

scholarly journals LEGAL PROBLEMS OF DUALISM OF JUDICIAL REVIEW SYSTEM IN INDONESIA

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pan Mohamad Faiz
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Current System ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Review System ◽  
Constitutional Review ◽  
Legal Problems ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Laws And Regulations

Indonesia implements dualism of judicial review system because there are two different judicial institutions that are granted the authority to review laws and regulations, namely the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court. This research aims to analyse the problems caused by the dualism of judicial review system. It found two main legal problems of the current system. First, there is an inconsistency of decisions concerning judicial review cases for the same legal issues decided by the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court. Second, there is no mechanism to review the constitutionality of People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR) decisions and regulations under the level of law. Based on these findings, this research suggests that the authority to review all laws and regulations should be integrated under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court.Keywords: Constitutional Court, Constitutional Review, Judicial Review

scholarly journals Penyelesaian Satu Atap Perkara Judicial Review Di Mahkamah Konstitusi

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-112
Author(s):  
Muhammad Ishar Helmi
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Low Costs

Abstract.After the integration of the judiciary, the Supreme Court has a very large responsibility which previously only managed judicial techniques (examining, adjudicating and deciding cases) and administration at the Supreme Court level, but after that the Supreme Court had to manage judicial and organizational techniques, administration , and the finance in the Supreme Court and the Judicial Agency below is supplemented by the authority of judicial review of legislation under the Act. However, with unification, cassation and authority judicial review can lead to accumulation of cases in the Supreme Court, so that this is contrary to the principle of fast justice and low costs and legal certainty will be ruled out. In addition, cases of judicial review at the Supreme Court also exclude the principle of audi et alteram partem, namely the statement heard by the parties in the trial, while the proceedings in the Supreme Court do not adhere to the principle as in the Constitutional Court which is open to the public.Keywords: Judicial Review, Audi et Alteram Partem, Constitutional Court. Abstrak.Setelah adanya penyatuatapan lembaga peradilan, Mahkamah Agung memiliki tanggung jawab yang sangat besar yang sebelumnya hanya mengelola teknis yudisial (memeriksa, mengadili, dan memutus perkara) dan administrasi di tingkat Mahkamah Agung, akan tetapi setelah itu Mahkamah Agung harus mengelola teknis yudisial dan organisasi, administrasi, serta finansial di Mahkamah Agung dan Badan Peradilan di bawahnya ditambah lagi dengan kewenangan judicial review peraturan perundang-undangan di bawah Undang-Undang. Namun, dengan penyatuatapan, kasasi dan kewenagan judicial review dapat mengakibatkan menumpuknya perkara di Mahkamah Agung, sehingga hal tersebut bertentangan dengan asas peradilan cepat dan biaya ringan serta kepastian hukum akan dikesampingkan. Selain itu, perkara judicial review di Mahkamah Agung juga mengenyampingkan prinsip audi et alteram partem yakni keterangan didengarkan oleh para pihak di dalam persidangan, sedangkan proses persidangan dalam Mahkamah Agung  tidak menganut prinsip seperti di Mahkamah Konstitusi yang bersifat terbuka untuk umum. Kata Kunci: Judicial Review, Audi et Alteram Partem, Mahkamah Konstitusi

scholarly journals MODEL PENGUJIAN PERATURAN PERUNDANG-UNDANGAN SATU ATAP MELALUI MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 247
Author(s):  
Sholahuddin Al-Fatih
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Regulatory Testing ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
New Ideas ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Bureaucratic Reform

Post-reform of the role of judicial institution is run by two institutions namely the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court. The duties and authorities of the two institutions are regulated in the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia 1945 and the act that addresses the three institutions more specifically. Several powers possessed by the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, one of them is the authority to judicial review. The Constitutional Court is authorized to review the act on the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia 1945, while the Supreme Court is authorized to review under the Act on the above legislation.The unfairness of the regulatory testing function is feared to trigger bureaucratic inefficiency. Based on data released by the Supreme Court Clerk, it was recorded during 2016 that the Supreme Court received 18,514 cases, including the Hak Uji Materi (HUM) subject to legislation under the Act. While the number of cases of judicial review of the Constitutional Court in 2016-2017 amounted to only 332 cases. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct a bureaucratic reform and provide new ideas related to the model of one court of judicial review in Indonesia. So that in this paper will be discussed deeply about problematic of judicial review in Indonesia and the authority of the Constitutional Court to review the act under one roof with SIJURI mechanism.

scholarly journals KAJIAN YURIDIS TERHADAP PENEGASAN HIEARAKI PERATURAN PERUNDANG-UNDANGAN DI INDONESIA DALAM PERSPEKTIF STUFEN THEORIE

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 95
Author(s):  
Muhammad Yusrizal Adi Syaputra
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
State Institutions ◽  
Binding Force ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Uncertainty

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 />

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 Filling the Hole in Indonesia’s Constitutional System: Constitutional Courts and the Review of Regulations in a Split Jurisdiction

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 27
Author(s):  
Tim Lindsey
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Constitutional Review ◽  
The Real ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional System ◽  
Do So

The Indonesian constitutional system contains a serious flaw that means that the constitutionality of a large number of laws cannot be determined by any court. Although the jurisdiction for the judicial review of laws is split between the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court, neither can review the constitutionality of subordinate regulations. This is problematic because in Indonesia the real substance of statutes is often found in implementing regulations, of which there are very many. This paper argues that that is open to the Constitutional Court to reconsider its position on review of regulations in order to remedy this problem. It could do so by interpreting its power of judicial review of statutes to extend to laws below the level of statutes. The paper begins with a brief account of how Indonesia came to have a system of judicial constitutional review that is restricted to statutes. It then examines the experience of South Korea’s Constitutional Court, a court in an Asian civil law country with a split jurisdiction for judicial review of laws like Indonesia’s. Despite controversy, this court has been able to interpret its powers to constitutionally invalidate statutes in such a way as to extend them to subordinate regulations as well. This paper argues that Indonesia’s Constitutional Court should follow South Korea’s example, in order to prevent the possibility of constitutionalism being subverted by unconstitutional subordinate regulations.

scholarly journals Juridical Analysis of the Decision of the Constitutional Court Number: 69 / PUU-XIII / 2015 on Article 29 Law Number 1 of 1974 Concerning Marriage

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (5) ◽  
pp. 720
Author(s):  
Yusri Yusri ◽  
Yaswirman Yaswirman ◽  
Neneng Oktarina
Keyword(s):  
Decision Analysis ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Married Couples ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Personal Property ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Shared Property ◽  
Legal Marriage ◽  
Joint Property

Indonesia as a legal state, the presence of law in a country aims to guarantee life to protect the interests of citizens. In the Indonesian government system there are several branches of power, namely the legislative, executive and judiciary branches, the judicial power branches are the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court's authority is contained in Article 24 C paragraph (1) and (2) adjudicating at the first and last level whose decision is final to review the Law on the Constitution. Marriage agreement is a form of agreement that regulates assets in marriage and others. A marriage agreement is also an agreement which can affect other regulations. So with the regulation of the marriage agreement in Article 29 paragraph (1) prior to the lawsuit for judicial review to the Constitutional Court stating that the marriage agreement was made at the time, and before the marriage took place, this is what prevents many married couples from different citizens who previously were not have a marriage agreement while their interests require a marriage agreement. The decision analysis can be concluded that the Urgency of the marriage agreement in its decision No.69 / PUU-XIII / 2015 states that the importance of the marriage agreement is related to the position of shared property so that there is a separation of husband's assets with the wife's assets both regarding their respective belongings and the assets that belong to each other obtained during the marriage known as joint property. Whereas the assets obtained before their marriage period together are known as inheritance or personal property obtained after the marriage period which is usually referred to as acquisition assets. Due to the legal marriage agreement before MK Decision Number 69 / PUU-XIII / 2015, Indonesian citizens who carry out marriages mixed and does not make a marriage agreement, the Indonesian citizen may not have immovable property in the form of ownership or building rights.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document