ANALISIS DASAR PERTIMBANGAN HAKIM DALAM PENGAJUAN TUNTUTAN KEKURANGAN PEMBAYARAN UPAH MINIMUM PEKERJA (STUDI PUTUSAN PENGADILAN HUBUNGAN INDUSTRIAL NOMOR 195/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2016/PN.Bdg JUNCTO PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH AGUNG NOMOR 885K/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2017)

The demand for the minimum payment of the minimum wage has an expiration date, which is 2 years. The expiration date has been revoked with the Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 100/PUU-X/2012. In the Decision of the Industrial Relations Court Number 195/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2016/PN.Bdg juncto Decision of the Supreme Court Number 885K/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2017, the judge refused to grant the claim the minimum wage payment. Based on the verdict, what will be discussed in this paper are how the judges basis for filing a claim lacks payment of workers' minimum wages and how the legal consequences from the judge's consideration in filing a claim lack the minimum wage payment in the Industrial Relations Court Decision Number 195/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2016/PN.Bdg juncto Decision of the Supreme Court Number 885K/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2017. The research method used is normative legal research. Based on the research that has been done, the judge mistakenly interpreted the enactment of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 100/PUU-X/2012 so the judge refused to grant the claim for the lack of minimum wage payments submitted by the plaintiffs. The judge's judgment stated that the Constitutional Court Decision Number 100/PUU-X/2012 did not apply retroactively so that the normative rights expiration provisions last took effect on September 18, 2013. Even though the claim should have been partially granted by the judge because the employer proved to pay workers' wages under the minimum wage provisions applicable, namely for payment of wages in 2013. In addition, the plaintiffs also submitted the claim after the issuance of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 100/PUU-X/2012.

Download Full-text

Kedudukan Peraturan Daerah Yang Dibatalkan Oleh Keputusan Menteri Dalam Negeri Setelah Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 137/PUU-XIII/2015

Syiah Kuala Law Journal ◽

10.24815/sklj.v3i1.12158 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 3 (1) ◽

pp. 95-113

Author(s):

Rahmat Qadri Nasrun ◽

Husni Djalil ◽

Efendi Efendi

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Research Method ◽

Central Government ◽

Secondary Data ◽

Research Data ◽

Court Decision ◽

Constitutional Court ◽

Regional Government ◽

Legal Research ◽

The Supreme Court

Pada tahun 2016 Menteri Dalam Negeri membatalkan 3.143 Peraturan Daerah bermasalah. Kemudian pada tahun 2017 Mahkamah Konstitusi mengeluarkan sebuah Putusan yang mencabut kewenangan Menteri Dalam Negeri untuk membatalkan Peraturan Daerah. Akan tetapi masih ada Pemerintah Daerah yang melaksanakan Peraturan Daerah yang dibatalkan oleh Menteri Dalam Negeri sebelum keluarnya Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Penelitian ini bertujuan, untuk menganalisis kekuatan eksekutorial Keputusan Menteri Dalam Negeri yang membatalkan peraturan daerah sebelum Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi serta untuk menganalisis kedudukan peraturan daerah yang dibatalkan oleh Keputusan Menteri Dalam Negeri yang masih dilaksanakan oleh Pemerintah Daerah setelah Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah penelitian hukum normatif. Sumber data penelitian adalah data sekunder yang terdiri dari bahan hukum primer, bahan hukum sekunder dan bahan hukum tertier. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa pertama. Menteri Dalam Negeri masih dapat melaksanakan Keputusan untuk membatalkan Peraturan Daerah karena Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi tidak berlaku surut, namun idealnya yang lebih berhak membatalkan Peraturan Daerah adalah Mahkamah Agung. Kedua, Kedudukan Peraturan Daerah yang dibatalkan oleh Keputusan Menteri Dalam Negeri yang masih dilaksanakan oleh Pemerintah Daerah setelah dikeluarkannya Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi maka Peraturan Daerah tersebut tidak langsung batal karena ada mekanisme yang harus dilakukan yaitu pencabutan. Selama belum ada pencabutan, maka Peraturan Daerah dimaksud tetap ada tetapi tidak bisa dilaksanakan. Disarankan kepada Pemerintah Pusat agar merevisi Undang-Undang Nomor 23 Tahun 2014 khususnya pasal yang mengatur tentang pembatalan Peraturan Daerah dan apabila mengeluarkan suatu peraturan perundang-undangan harus berpedoman pada hierarki peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku saat itu.In 2016 the Minister of Home Affairs canceled 3,143 problematic Regional Regulations. Then in 2017 the Constitutional Court issued a Decision revoking the authority of the Minister of Home Affairs to cancel the Regional Regulation. However, there are still Regional Governments who carry out Regional Regulations that have been canceled by the Minister of Home Affairs before the decision of the Constitutional Court is issued. This study aims to analyze the executorial power of the Decree of the Minister of Home Affairs which overturned regional regulations before the Constitutional Court Decision and to analyze the position of regional regulations which were canceled by the Decree of the Minister of Home Affairs which was still implemented by the Regional Government after the Constitutional Court Decision. The research method used is normative legal research. The source of research data is secondary data consisting of primary legal materials, secondary legal materials and tertiary legal materials. The results of the study indicate that : first, The Minister of Home Affairs can still implement the Decision to cancel Regional Regulations because the Constitutional Court Decision does not apply retroactively, but ideally the more entitled to cancel Regional Regulations is the Supreme Court. Second, the position of the Regional Regulation which was canceled by the Decree of the Minister of Home Affairs which is still carried out by the Regional Government after the issuance of the Constitutional Court Decision, the Regional Regulation is not immediately canceled because there is a mechanism that must be done, namely revocation. As long as there has been no revocation, then the Regional Regulation in question still exists but cannot be implemented. It is recommended to the Central Government to revise Act. No. 23 Year 2014 specifically the articles governing the cancellation of Regional Regulations and when issuing a law and regulation must be guided by the hierarchy of legislation in force at that time.

Download Full-text

Pengujian Peraturan Pemerintah Pengganti Undang-Undang

10.31219/osf.io/z289x ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Ali Marwan Hsb

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Government Regulation ◽

Court Decision ◽

Constitutional Court ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Form Of Government ◽

The Law ◽

The Republic

Article 24C Section (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia authorizes the Constitutional Court to reviewthe law against the constitution. However, when referring to the hierarchy of legislation, the law has the equal hierarchy with government regulation in lieu of law. It makes a question whether the Constitutional Court truly has the authority to review government regulation in lieu of law against the constitution? Based on the research in this paper, it was found that by the Constitutional Court Decision Number 138/PUU-VII/2009, the Constitutional Court stated that the authority to review government regulation in lieu of law under the authority of the Constitutional Court because the substance of government regulation in lieu of law is similar with the substance of law. So, the Constitutional Court has the authority to review a government regulation in lieu of law materially. Such decision is correct; the Constitutional Court has the authority to review a government regulation in lieu of law in material because the substance is similar with the law. While formally reviewing should be the authority of the Supreme Court due to government regulation in lieu of law formally is in the form of government regulation

Download Full-text

PENERAPAN WASIAT WAJIBAH TERHADAP NON MUSLIM DITINJAU DARI KOMPILASI HUKUM ISLAM (KHI) STUDI KASUS PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH AGUNG NO. 331/K/AG/2018/MA

Jurnal Hukum Adigama ◽

10.24912/adigama.v2i2.6533 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 2 (2) ◽

pp. 267

Author(s):

Liana Noviyanti ◽

Mulati Mulati

Keyword(s):

Qualitative Research ◽

Supreme Court ◽

Islamic Law ◽

Supreme Court Decision ◽

Court Decision ◽

Court Ruling ◽

Legal Research ◽

Supreme Court Ruling ◽

Library Research ◽

The Supreme Court

Islamic law has stated that every person of different religion cannot inherit each other, both Muslims inherit for non-Muslims and from non-Muslims inherit for Muslims, but in practice, Judges at the Supreme Court level implement mandatory wills, this is required which has been decided in the Supreme Court Decision Number. 331 / K / AG / 2018 / MA. This study aims to examine how to implement the mandatory non-Muslim wills in the Supreme Court ruling Number. 331 / K / AG / 2018 / MA based on the provisions of the Compilation of Islamic Law (KHI), and what the Supreme Court Judges consider in implementing mandatory testaments against non-Muslims in the Supreme Court Decision Number. 331 / K / AG / 2018 / MA. This research is a normative legal research with the nature of qualitative research with the type of library research. Based on the studies that have been carried out, the Decision of the Supreme Court Number. 331 / K / AG / 2018 / MA does not include legal considerations in force in Indonesia concerning inheritance provisions and concerning the granting of an approved mandatory will set out in the Compilation of Islamic Law (KHI). The application of mandatory wills in the Supreme Court Decision is contrary to the provisions of Islamic Law and the provisions of the Compilation of Islamic Law (KHI). Article 209 paragraphs (1) and (2) concerning mandatory wills.

Download Full-text

PENJARA TERHADAP DOKTER DALAM PERSPEKTIF MENGIKATNYA PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI DAN PEMIDANAAN INTEGRATIF

Jurnal Yudisial ◽

10.29123/jy.v10i1.42 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 10 (1) ◽

pp. 59

Author(s):

Warih Anjari

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Medical Profession ◽

Supreme Court Decision ◽

Court Decision ◽

Constitutional Court ◽

Court Ruling ◽

Binding Force ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Negative Impacts ◽

Sentencing Theory

ABSTRAKKekuatan mengikat putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi bersifat final dan mengikat. Namun Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 4/PUU-V/2007 tidak ditaati oleh Putusan Nomor 1110 K/Pid.Sus/2012. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi telah menganulir ancaman pidana penjara dalam Pasal 75 ayat (1), Pasal 76, dan Pasal 79 Undang-Undang Nomor 29 Tahun 2004 tentang Praktik Kedokteran. Putusan Mahkamah Agung tetap menjatuhkan pidana penjara terhadap dokter yang melanggar pasal tersebut. Kondisi ini menimbulkan ketidaksesuaian antara kekuatan mengikat putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi dan tujuan penjatuhan pidana yang integratif berdasarkan Pancasila. Masalah dalam tulisan ini adalah bagaimanakah implikasi Putusan Nomor 1110 K/Pid.Sus/2012 dikaitkan dengan kekuatan mengikat Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi? Dan bagaimanakah implikasi penjatuhan pidana penjara bagi dokter yang tercantum dalam Putusan Nomor 1110 K/ Pid.Sus/2012 dikaitkan dengan teori tujuan pemidanaan integratif? Metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam tulisan ini adalah metode penelitian yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan kasus. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi memiliki sifat erga ormes sehingga harus diikuti oleh Mahkamah Agung. Pidana penjara terhadap dokter yang tidak menggunakan izin praktik tidak dapat mencapai tujuan pemidanaan integratif. Akibatnya pelayanan kesehatan bagi masyarakat tidak terlayani, dan merugikan profesi dokter. Kesimpulannya adalah putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi tidak mempunyai kekuatan mengikat sehingga menjadi tidak efektif dan tujuan pemidanaan integratif berdasarkan Pancasila tidak tercapai.Kata kunci: pidana penjara, kekuatan putusan, tujuan pemidanaan integratif.ABSTRACTThe binding force of the Constitutional Court ruling is final. However, the Supreme Court Decision Number 1110 K/Pid.Sus/2012 does not abide by the Constitutional Court Decision Number 4/PUU-V/2007. The Constitutional Court Decision has annulled the imprisonment penalties in Article 75 paragraph (1), Article 76, Article 79 of Law Number 29 of 2004 concerning Medical Practices. The Supreme Court in its decision imposed the sanction of imprisonment on the doctors violating the aforementioned articles. This condition lead to such a discrepancy between the final and binding decision of the Constitutional Court and the integrated purposes of sentencing under Pancasila. Formulation of the problems in this analysis meets some points on how the implication of the Supreme Court Decision Number 1110 K/Pid.Sus/2012 regarding the binding force of the Constitutional Court Decision; and how the implication of the imposition of imprisonment sanction for a list of doctors stated in the Supreme Court Decision Number 1110 K/Pid.Sus/2012 in terms of integrated objective of sentencing theory. The research method is a normative juridical by case-based approach. The nature of the decision of the Constitutional Court is erga omnes, that obliges the Supreme Court to act upon. The sanction of imprisonment against the doctors with no consent practices cannot reach the integrated purpose of sentencing. As a consequence, the health services to communities are abandoned and this bring negative impacts on medical profession. To be brief, the decision of the Constitutional Court is considered futile with no binding force, accordingly the integrated purpose of sentencing under Pancasila could not be achieved.Keywords: imprisonment, binding force of ruling, integrated purpose of sentencing.

Download Full-text

IDEAS FOR STRENGTHENING SUPREME COURT JUDICIAL REVIEW AUTHORITY IN REVIEW OF REGIONAL REGULATIONS

JURNAL HUKUM DAN PERADILAN ◽

10.25216/jhp.9.3.2020.505-522 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 9 (3) ◽

pp. 505

Author(s):

Muh Risnain

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Judicial Review ◽

Court Decision ◽

Constitutional Court ◽

The Public ◽

Procedural Law ◽

Preliminary Examination ◽

Legal Implications ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Legal Procedures

AbstractThe problem of judicial review of regional regulations in the Supreme Court is a serious academic and practical issue that needs to be resolved after the issuance of the decision of the Constitutional Court Number 137 / PUU-XIII / 2015. There are two problems in this paper, first, the legal implications of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 137 / PUU-XIII / 2015 on institutional and legal procedures for judicial review of regional regulations in the Supreme Court, secondly, how is the concept of the Supreme Court judicial review carried out through renewal of procedural law Trial Judicial Review in the Supreme Court? Based on the discussion above, we can conclude two things, first, the legal implications of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 137 / PUU-XIII / 2015 on the institutional and legal procedures for judicial review of regional regulations in the Supreme Court are the stronger and increasing authority of judicial review in Supreme Court. This decision ended the dualism of review of local regulations from judicial review by the Supreme Court and executive review of regional regulations by the Ministry of Home Affairs to only a judicial review by the Supreme Court, also potentially increasing the number of cases of judicial review in the Supreme Court. Second, the concept of the implementation of a judicial review by the Supreme Court is carried out through legal renewal of the judicial review proceedings in the Supreme Court by including several important substances, related to hearings that are open to the public, the existence of a preliminary examination, hearing, verdict and decision making that are more open and fair.Keywords: Regional Regulation, Judicial Review, and Reformation ABSTRAKProblem judicial review Perda di Mahkamah Agung menjadi persoalan akademik dan praktikal serius yang perlu dipecahkan pascakeluarnya putusan Mahkamah konstitusi Nomor 137/PUU-XIII/2015. Terdapat dua masalah dalam tulisan ini, pertama, implikasi hukum Putusan Mahkamah konstitusi Nomor 137/PUU-XIII/2015 terhadap kelembagaan dan hukum acara judicial review perda di mahkamah agung, kedua, bagaimanakah konsep pelaksanaan judicial review perda oleh mahkamah agung dilakukan melalui pembaharuan hukum acara persidangan judicial review di mahkamah agung?. Berdasarkan pembahasan di atas maka dapat disimpulkan dua hal , pertama, implikasi hukum Putusan Mahkamah konstitusi Nomor 137/PUU-XIII/2015 terhadap kelembagaan dan hukum acara judicial review perda di mahkamah agung adalah semakin kuat dan meningkatnya kewenangan judicial review di mahakamah agung. Putusan ini mengakhiri dualisme review perda dari judicial review oleh MA dan executive review perda oleh kemendagri menjadi hanya judicial review oleh Mahkamah Agung, juga berpotensi meningkatkan jumlah perkara judicial review perda di mahkamah agung. Kedua, konsep pelaksanaan judicial review perda oleh mahkamah agung dilakukan melalui pembaharuan hukum acara persidangan judicial review di mahkamah agung dengan memasukan beberapa substansi penting, terkait sidang yang terbuka untuk umum, adanya proses pemeriksaan pendahuluan, pemeriksaan persidangan, pembuktian dan pengambilan putusan yang lebih terbuka dan fair.Kata Kunci : Peaturan Daerah, JudicialReview, dan Pembaharuan.

Download Full-text

Eksistensi Komisi Yudisial Republik Indonesia dalam Menciptakan Hakim Agung Yang Berkualitas dan Berintegritas

Kalabbirang Law Journal ◽

10.35877/454ri.kalabbirang15 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 1 (2) ◽

pp. 22-34

Author(s):

Muslim Mamulai

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Research Methods ◽

Research Method ◽

Ad Hoc ◽

Constitutional Court ◽

Legal Research ◽

High Quality ◽

Court Judge ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

The Republic

Kajian ini untuk mengkaji eksistensi Komisi Yudisial Republik Indonesa dalam menciptakan hakim agung yang berkualitas dan berintegritas. Metode peneltia yang digunaka menggunakan metode peneltian hukum normatif. Hasil kajian menunjukkan bahwa Kewenangan Komisi Yudisial sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 24B ayat (1) UUD 1945 mengalami dinamika dan perubahan dalam penafsiran baik pada tingkat legislasi di DPR, ajudikasi di Mahkamah Konstitusi dan Mahkamah Agung, maupun pada tingkat regulasi di Mahkamah Agung dan Komisi Yudisial.Eksistensi Komisi Yudisial mengusulkan pengangkatan hakim agung telah mengalami perluasan makna mencakup hakim ad hoc di Mahkamah Agung serta penguatan dengan dihapuskan kewenangan DPR untuk memilih calon hakim agung dan hanya menyetujui atau tidak menyetujui calon hakim agung usulan Komisi Yudisial. This study is to study the existence of the Judicial Commission of the Republic of Indonesia in creating high-quality judges with integrity. The research method used uses normative legal research methods. The results showed that the authority of the Judicial Commission as referred to in Article 24B paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution experienced dynamics and changes in interpretation both at the legislative level in the DPR, adjudication in the Constitutional Court and Supreme Court, as well as in the Supreme Court and Judicial Commission. The existence of the Judicial Commission proposing the appointment of a Supreme Court judge has broadened the meaning including ad hoc judges in the Supreme Court and strengthened by abolishing the authority of the DPR to elect candidate judges and only approving or not approving candidates for the proposed Judicial Commission.

Download Full-text

Tinjauan Yuridis Pengajuan Permohonan Peninjauan Kembali pada Perkara Pidana dalam Sistem Hukum Indonesia

Jurnal Preferensi Hukum ◽

10.22225/jph.1.2.2347.99-105 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 1 (2) ◽

pp. 99-105

Author(s):

I Made Widi Adi Peremana ◽

A. A. Sagung Laksmi Dewi ◽

Ni Made Sukaryati Karma

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Legal System ◽

Constitutional Court ◽

Criminal Cases ◽

Legal Research ◽

Procedure Code ◽

Library Research ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Circular Letter ◽

The Republic

The study of this research is the submission of requests for reconsideration in criminal cases in the Indonesian legal system which became a polemic after the issuance of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 34 / XI-PUU / 2013 and Circular Letter of the Supreme Court (SEMA) Number 7 of 2014 concerning Submission of Reappeals in Cases Criminal. The research objectives to be achieved, in this case, are the regulation of legal reconsideration efforts in Indonesia and the procedure for submitting a request for review in the Indonesian system. Researchers use a normative juridical approach or library research or doctrinal legal research which can be interpreted as legal research by examining library materials and secondary materials. This study illustrates that the regulations for reconsideration in the legal system in Indonesia are based on various regulations, namely Law Number 8 of 1981 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code, Law No. 3 of 2009 concerning the Supreme Court, Law no. 48 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power, Circular Letter of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia No. 7 of 2014 concerning Review of Criminal Cases and Submission of Reconsiderations at this time refers to the provisions of the Circular Letter of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia No. 7 of 2014 concerning Reconsideration in Criminal Cases.

Download Full-text

Analisis Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 50 P/HUM/2018 tentang Pembatalan Permenkumham Nomor 25 Tahun 2017

Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Pancasila dan Kewarganegaraan ◽

10.17977/um019v5i1p139-147 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 5 (1) ◽

pp. 139

Author(s):

Deno Ukida Narasoma ◽

Iwan Permadi ◽

Diah Aju Wisnu Wardhani

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Supreme Court ◽

Supreme Court Decision ◽

Court Decision ◽

Historical Approach ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Two Factors ◽

Legal Consequences

This study aimed to analyze the reasons the Supreme Court issued a Supreme Court Decision Number 50 P/HUM/2018 which decided the cancellation of the Minister of Law and Human Rights Regulation Number 25 of 2017 and analyze the legal consequences of the decision on new notary candidates. This study used normative juridical with a statutory approach and historical approach. The reasons the Supreme Court issued Supreme Court Decision Number 50 P/HUM/2018 were influenced by two factors, i.e., juridical and non-juridical factors. The legal consequences of the Supreme Court Decision Number 50 P/HUM/2018 for new notary candidates was the disappearance of the notary candidate’s obligation to take the notary appointment exam and the emergence of problems related to the clarity of the qualifications that should be completed to register as a notary because the ruling resulted in a legal vacuum related to the terms of the conditions in the appointment of a public notary.

Download Full-text

Menimbang Kedudukan Majelis Kehormatan Mahkamah Konstitusi Setelah Terbitnya Undang-Undang Nomor 7 Tahun 2020

Jurnal Konstitusi ◽

10.31078/jk1749 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 17 (4) ◽

pp. 899

Author(s):

Zuhad Aji Firmantoro

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

State Government ◽

Judicial Review ◽

Court Decision ◽

Constitutional Court ◽

Material Research ◽

Representative Government ◽

Conceptual Approach ◽

Constitutional State ◽

The Supreme Court

AbstrakPenelitian ini membahas tentang penafsiran Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam pengujian Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 2011 tentang Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 24 Tahun 2003 tentang Mahkamah Konstitusi terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945 yang putusannya mengabulkan sebagian permohonan pemohon berupa perubahan terhadap komposisi anggota Majelis Kehormatan Mahkamah Konstitusi, yakni Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 49/PUU-IX/2011. Ada dua permasalahan yang diteliti dalam penelitian ini, yaitu Pertama, apakah masuknya unsur DPR, Pemerintah dan Mahkamah Agung bertentangan dengan Pasal 1 ayat (3) dan Pasal 24 ayat (1) dan ayat (2) UUD 1945? Kedua, apakah implikasi putusan pembatalan Pasal 27A ayat (2) huruf C, D, dan E terhadap mekanisme saling kontrol (chekcs and balance) antar cabang kekuasaan negara (eksekutif, legislatif dan yudikatif) di Indonesia? Metode penelitian yang digunakan yakni penelitian yuridis normatif dengan menggunakan pendekatan konseptual, selain itu, dikaji dengan studi kasus yang berkaitan dengan materi yang dikaji. Hasil dari penelitian ini adalah, pertama: berdasarkan kajian Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 49/PUU-IX/2011 yang mengabulkan sebagian permohonan pengujian Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 2011 tentang Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 24 Tahun 2003 tentang Mahkamah Konstitusi terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945, Mahkamah Konstitusi menyatakan bahwa pembuat undang-undang telah membahayakan kemerdekaan kekuasaan kehakiman sebagaimana diatur dalam pasal 1 ayat (3) dan Pasal 24 ayat (1) dan ayat (2) UUD 1945 dengan memasukan unsur Pemerintah, DPR dan Mahkamah Agung dalam keanggotaan Majelis Kehormatan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Kedua, Putusan tersebut berimplikasi pada keanggotaan Majelis Kehormatan Mahkamah Konstitusi yang terdiri dan terbatas atas 2 (dua) unsur yaitu Mahkamah Konstitusi dan Komisi Yudisial. Karena itu utusan Mahkamah Konstitusi tersebut dianggap telah berhasil menjaga berlakunya asas check and balance antar 3 (tiga) cabang kekuasaan (eksekutif, legislatif dan yudikatif) dalam sistem ketatanegaraan indonesia.AbstractThis research elaborates the Constitutional Court interpretation within Decision No. 49/PUU-IX/2011 on judicial review of Law No. 8 of 2011 on amendments of Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court which its decision has granted mostly the petitioner’s petitions to change the Honorary Council of the Constitutional Court members composition. There are at least two examined issues in this study, they are: Firstly, does the addition of elements House of Representative, Government and the Supreme Court contradict Article 1 paragraph (3) and Article 24 paragraph (1) and (2) of the 1945 Constitution? And secondly, what is the implication of the decision to repeal Article 27A paragraph (2) letters C, D, and E for check and balance between three branches of state government (executive, legislative and judicial) in Indonesia? This research is normative legal research that uses a conceptual approach, also reviewed with case studies related to material research. The results show; Firstly, based on the study to Indonesian Constitutional Court Decision No. 49/PUU-IX/2011 which accepted most of the petitioner’s petitions on judicial review of Law No. 8 of 2011, the Constitutional Court stated that the addition of elements House of Representative, Government and the Supreme Court as members in the Honorary Council of the Constitutional Court then legislators have endangered the freedom of judicial power as regulated Article 1 paragraph (3) and Article 24 paragraph (1) and (2) the 1945 Constitution. Secondly, this decision has an impact on the members of the Honorary Council of the Constitutional Court which only consists of two elements, namely the constitutional court and the judicial commission. Therefore, the Constitutional Court Decision is considered successful in keeping the principle of check and balance between three branches of state government in the Indonesian constitutional state system.

Download Full-text

Problematika Pengujian Peraturan Perundang-Undangan Di Mahkamah Agung ( Kajian Terhadap Putusan Mahkamah Agung No. 65 P/HUM/2018)

SASI ◽

10.47268/sasi.v27i1.417 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 27 (1) ◽

pp. 61

Author(s):

Suparto Suparto

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Supreme Court Decision ◽

Court Decision ◽

Constitutional Court ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Stage Process ◽

Legal Consequence ◽

Election Commission ◽

Legal Implication ◽

Laws And Regulations

The Supreme Court (MA) decided that candidates for members of the Regional Representative Council (DPD) from political party administrators for the 2019 Election were still allowed, even though previously the Constitutional Court (MK) had banned it (Decision No. This conflict is due to differences in interpreting the timing of the implementation of the ongoing 2019 Election stage process. The Constitutional Court stated that the decision was enforced since the 2019 Election and this was not retroactive. Because it is still at the Provisional Candidate List (DCS) stage, so it is possible to change regulations. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court considers that the Constitutional Court's decision must be enforced after the 2019 Election or apply in the future (prospective), because the stages have been running, so that changes in requirements can be made The legal implication that occurs is that there is legal uncertainty for the General Election Commission (KPU) to follow which decision. To solve this problem can be used the doctrine of validity (enforceability of norms). The existence of a hierarchy of legal products being tested and a basis for testing certainly has a legal consequence of the existence of a hierarchy of norm validity in the decisions of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court. When there is a conflict between the Supreme Court decision and the Constitutional Court, the verdict with the basis and object of examination in the hierarchy of laws and regulations that is higher, namely the Constitutional Court decision, has a higher validity than the Supreme Court decision. So that problems like this do not exist anymore, testing of laws and regulations should only be carried out by one institution, namely the Constitutional Court.

Download Full-text