scholarly journals IMPLIKASI HUKUM TIDAK DILAKSANAKANNYA PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI DALAM PERKARA PENGUJIAN UNDANG-UNDANG

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 1089
Author(s):  
Andre Suryadinata ◽  
Toendjoeng Herning Sitaboeana
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Legal Implications ◽  
Rules Of Procedure

The Constitutional Court is one of the branches of judicial power that has authority to adjudicate at the first and last level whose decision is final to test the law against the Constitution as regulated in Article 24C paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. The final nature of  decision of the constitutional court is binding on the entire community since it was said in the Open Plenary Session. Therefore, decision of constitutional court that invalidates the validity of a law must be followed up by legislators in the cumulative list open to the national legislation program. But in practice there are 2 (two) decisions that have not been followed up, namely Constitutional Court Decision Number 31 / PUU-XI / 2013 and Constitutional Court Decision Number 30 / PUU-XVI / 2018. Based on this description, it will be examined regarding the legal implications of not implementing the Constitutional Court Decision in case of judicial review? The author examines the problem using the method of normative legal research with the statutory approach. From the results of this study, it was found that the non-follow-up of the two decisions had violated the principle of rule of law in concept of the rule of law, and caused the loss of the decision-making power, and was a form of neglect of principle of legal awareness. So it is necessary to make changes in stages of the Constitutional Court Law and the House of Representatives' Regulations on Rules of Procedure.

scholarly journals Analisis Yuridis Penyelesaian Sengketa Perbankan Syariah Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 93/PUU-X/2012

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 78-85
Author(s):  
S.H.S Ulil Albab ◽  
Trinah Asi Islam
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Normative Approach ◽  
Library Research ◽  
Legal Implications ◽  
Islamic Economic ◽  
Religious Courts ◽  
Systematic Exposition

Abstract: The problem of resolving Sharia banking disputes arises after the issue of Law Number 8 of 2008 concerning Sharia Banking, precisely in Article 55 paragraph (2). Article 55 paragraph (2) legally reduces Law No. 3/2006 concerning Religious Courts which gives authority to the Religious Courts in resolving Islamic economic disputes. resulting in a dualism of the authority of the Court, namely the Religious Courts and General Courts. In the Constitutional Court Decision Number 93 / PUU-X / 2012 states that Article 55 Paragraph (2) of the Islamic Banking Law, causes legal uncertainty that is contrary to Article 28D Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution concerning legal certainty. This research uses the library research method, namely research that studies and examines theories, and ideas, with a normative approach that aims to provide a systematic exposition of the rule of law. This study analyzes the settlement of Sharia Banking disputes Post Constitutional Court Ruling Number: 93 / PUU-X / 2012 and its legal implications. The decision of the Constitutional Court was that the settlement of sharia banking was settled in the Religious Courts and Arbitration Institutions so that there was no longer dualism in resolving Sharia Banking disputes. Keywords: Juridical Analysis, Sharia Banking Disputes, Constitutional Court Decision Number: 93 / PUU-X / 2012   Abstrak: Masalah penyelesaian sengketa perbankan Syariah muncul setelah lahirnya Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 2008 Tentang Perbankan Syariah, tepatnya pada Pasal 55 ayat (2). Pasal 55 ayat (2) tersebut secara yuridis mereduksi UU Nomor 3 tahun 2006 tentang Peradilan Agama yang memberikan kewenangan kepada Peradilan Agama dalam menyelesaikan sengketa ekonomi syariah. sehingga menimbulkan dualisme kewenangan Pengadilan yaitu Peradilan Agama dan Peradialn Umum. Dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 93/PUU-X/2012 menyebutkan bahwa Pasal 55 Ayat (2) UU Perbankan Syariah, menyebabkan ketidak pastian hukum yang bertentangan dengan Pasal 28D Ayat (1) UUD 1945 tentang kepastian hukum. Penelitian ini menggunakan Metode penelitian kepustakaan (library research) yaitu penelitian yang mengkaji dan menelaah tentang teori, dan gagasan, dengan pendekatan  normatif yang bertujuan untuk memberikan eksposisi yang bersifat sistematis mengenai aturan hukum. Penelitian ini menganalisi tetang penyelesaian sengketa Perbankan syariah Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor : 93/PUU-X/2012 dan implikasi hukumnya. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi tersebut memutuskan penyelesaian perbankan syariah diselesaikan di Pengadilan Agama dan lembaga Arbitase sehingga tidak ada lagi dualisme penyelesaian sengketa Perbankan Syariah. Kata Kunci:   Analisis Yuridis, Sengketa Perbankan Syariah, Putusan Mahkamah                                          Konstitusi Nomor: 93/PUU-X/2012

scholarly journals Relevansi Putusan Uji Materi oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi terhadap Sistem Checks and Balances dalam Pembentukan Undang-Undang

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 353-379
Author(s):  
Despan Heryansyah ◽  
Harry Setya Nugraha
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
State Institutions ◽  
The Republic

This article discusses the relevance of the judicial review decision by the Constitutional Court to the checks and balances system in law legislation in Indonesia. In the framework of checks and balances between state institutions, the existence of the authority of the Constitutional Court to examine laws against the Constitution can be seen as a limitation for the legislators. This is because the discretion of legislators, namely the President and the House of Representatives, in carrying out the legislation function can be limited by the interpretation of the Constitution carried out by the Constitutional Court. This article concludes, the checks and balances mechanism regulated in the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia is realized with the principle of power limited by power. Therefore, the authority and decision of the judicial review by the Constitutional Court is not an intervention on the authority of lawmakers so that it isi assumed to pass the checks and belances principle. The authority and decision of the judicial review by the Constitutional Court actually confirms the manifestation of the principle of power limited by power and affirming the supremacy of the Constitution. Thus, the principle of supremacy of the Constitution in the context of the rule of law places the Constitution as the highest law. Abstrak Artikel ini membahas relevansi putusan uji materi oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi terhadap sistem checks and balances dalam pembentukan hukum berupa undang-undang di Indonesia. Dalam kerangka checks and balances antar lembaga negara, adanya kewenangan Mahkamah Konstitusi menguji undang-undang terhadap Konstitusi dapat dipandang sebagai suatu pembatasan bagi pembentuk undang-undang. Sebab, keleluasaan pembentuk undang-undang, yaitu Presiden dan Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat, dalam menjalankan fungsi legislasi bisa dibatasi oleh adanya tafsir Konstitusi yang dilakukan oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi. Artikel ini menyimpulkan, mekanisme checks and balances yang diatur dalam Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945 diwujudkan dengan prinsip kekuasaan dibatasi oleh kekuasaan. Karena itu, kewenangan dan putusan uji materi oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi bukanlah wujud intervensi terhadap kewenangan pembentuk undang-undang dan melampaui prinsip checks and balances. Kewenangan dan putusan uji materi oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi justru menegaskan wujud dari prinsip kekuasaan dibatasi kekuasaan dan meneguhkan supremasi Konstitusi. Demikianlah, prinsip supremasi Konstitusi dalam konteks negara hukum yang menempatkan Konstitusi sebagai hukum tertinggi.

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.

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.

scholarly journals IMPLIKASI JUDICIAL REVIEW TERHADAP HAK ANGKET YANG DIAJUKAN OLEH DPR PASCA PUTUSAN MK NO.26/PUU-XVI/2017 TENTANG PERMOHONAN HAK ANGKET DPR

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Agnes Fitryantica
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
State Power ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Negative Implication ◽  
Materials Used ◽  
Positively Charged

The Constitutional Court based on Article 24C of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia has 4 authorities and 1 obligation. These provisions are further contained in Article 10 of Law Number 24 Year 2003 concerning the Constitutional Court. The constitutional authority of the Constitutional Court in examining, adjudicating and deciding cases of judicial review of the constitution is about the constitutionality of norms. The method used is normative (doctrinal) legal research, using secondary data in the form of primary, tertiary and secondary legal materials. One of the legal materials used as the basis for analysis is the judge's decision and its implications for the judicial review. The results of the study that, the authority to test the Act against the 1945 Constitution theoretically or practically, makes the Constitutional Court as a controlling and balancing body in the administration of state power. The KPK is not the object of the Parlement questionnaire rights. The ruling emphasized that the KPK was an institution that could be the object of the questionnaire right by the Parlement. The implications of the decision of the Constitutional Court Number 36 / PUU-XV / 2017, can be grouped in two ways, namely: first, the implications are positively charged, namely the affirmation of the ownership of the House of Representatives questionnaire rights in Indonesian governance. Second, the negative implication is the possibility of using the DPR's excessive questionnaire rights without regard to existing limitations.Keywords : constitutional court; KPK; parlement.Mahkamah Konstitusi berdasarkan Pasal 24C UUD NRI Tahun 1945 memiliki 4 kewenangan dan 1 kewajiban. Ketentuan tersebut dituangkan lebih lanjut dalam Pasal 10 UU Nomor 24 Tahun 2003 tentang Mahkamah Konstitusi. Kewenangan konstitusional Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam memeriksa, mengadili dan memutus perkara pengujian undang-undang terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar adalah mengenai konstitusionalitas norma. Metode yang digunakan adalah penelitian hukum normatif (doktrinal), dengan menggunakan data sekunder berupa bahan hukum primer, tersier dan sekunder. Salah satu bahan hukum yang dijadikan dasar analisis adalah putusan hakim dan implikasinya terhadap yudicial review. Hasil penelitian bahwa, kewenangan menguji Undang-Undang terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 secara teoritis atau praktis, menjadikan Mahkamah Konstitusi sebagai lembaga pengontrol dan penyeimbang dalam penyelenggaraan kekuasaan negara, Dalam Putusan Nomor 36/PUU-XV/2017, Mahkamah Konstitusi memutuskan menolak permohonan pemohon yang pada intinya menyebut KPK bukan merupakan objek hak angket DPR. Putusan tersebut menegaskan KPK merupakan lembaga yang dapat menjadi objek hak angket oleh DPR. Implikasi dari putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 36/PUU-XV/2017 tersebut, dapat dikelompokkan dalam dua hal, yaitu: pertama, implikasi yang bermuatan positif, yaitu penegasan dimilikinya hak angket Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat dalam ketatanegaran Indonesia. Kedua, Implikasi yang bermuatan negatif yaitu adanya kemungkinan penggunaan hak angket DPR yang eksesif tanpa memperhatikan batasan-batasan yang ada.Kata Kunci: DPR; KPK; Mahkamah Konstitusi.     

scholarly journals JUDICIAL REVIEW PASAL-PASAL MAKAR KUHP: PERSPEKTIF PENAFSIRAN HUKUM DAN HAM (JUDICIAL REVIEW ON TREACHERY ARTICLES OF THE CRIMINAL CODE: THE PERSPECTIVE OF LAW INTERPRETATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS)

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 235-253
Author(s):  
Prianter Jaya Hairi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Legal Sanctions ◽  
Definition Of

In 2017, Constitutional Court has received three calls for judicial reviews regarding treachery (makar) article in the Criminal Code. These articles deemed to be contradicting with the principle of legal certainty and freedom of expression. This study analyzes the important issue that is being debate in those judicial reviews. One of those is about the argument which says that the absence of the definition of treachery in the Criminal Code has caused a violation of legal certainty. Besides, the rule of treachery in the Criminal Code has also considered to have caused a violation of freedom of expression which has been guaranteed by Constitution. Analysis shows that the absence of treachery definition in the Criminal Code is not something that instantly becomes a problem in its application that causing the loss of legal certainty. Law enforcer, especially judge, in enforcing the rule of law must always use the method of law interpretation which appropriate with legal norm. With systematic interpretation, treachery can be interpreted according to the sentence of the rule as a unity of the legal system. In this case, the term treachery as regulated in Article 87 of the Criminal Code can be systematically interpreted as the basis for Article 104-Article 108 of the Criminal Code, Article 130 of the Criminal Code, and Article 140 of the Criminal Code which regulates various types of treason and their respective legal sanctions for the perpetrators. Further, on the argument that the articles of treachery in the Criminal Code also can not necessarily be said to limit the freedom of expression, because every citizen’s freedom has limitation, including the limitation of law and human rights. AbstrakPada tahun 2017, Mahkamah Konstitusi telah menerima tiga kali judicial reviewterhadap pasalpasal tindak pidana makar dalam Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana (KUHP). Pasal-pasal ini dipandang bertentangan dengan prinsip kepastian hukum dan kebebasan berekspresi. Tulisan ini menganalisis substansi yang menjadi perdebatan dalam perkara judicial review tersebut. Di antaranya perdebatan mengenai tidak adanya definisi istilah makar dalam KUHP yang menyebabkan persoalan kepastian hukum. Selain itu, pengaturan tindak pidana makar dalam KUHP juga dinilai melanggar kebebasan berekspresi yang telah dijamin oleh konstitusi. Analisis terhadap persoalanpersoalan tersebut menunjukkan bahwa ketiadaan definisi kata “makar” dalam KUHP bukanlah merupakan sesuatu yang serta merta langsung menjadi persoalan dalam penerapannya sehingga menyebabkan hilangnya kepastian hukum. Penegak hukum, terutama hakim, dalam menegakkan peraturan hukum selalu menggunakan metode penafsiran hukum yang sesuai dengan kaidah ilmu hukum. Dengan penafsiran sistematis, makar dapat dimaknai sesuai kalimat dari peraturan sebagai suatu kesatuan sistem hukum. Dalam hal ini, istilah makar yang diatur dalam Pasal 87 KUHP, secara sistematis dapat ditafsirkan sebagai dasar bagi Pasal 104-Pasal 108 KUHP, Pasal 130 KUHP, dan Pasal 140 KUHP yang mengatur tentang jenis makar beserta sanksi hukumnya masing-masing bagi para pelakunya. Selain itu, mengenai argumen bahwa pasal-pasal makar dalam KUHP berpotensi melanggar HAM dan dipandang bertentangan dengan konstitusi dapat dikatakan tidak beralasan. Sebab kebebasan HAM setiap orang tidak tanpa batas, di antaranya dibatasi nilai-nilai agama, keamanan, dan ketertiban umum.

scholarly journals IMPLIKASI PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI NOMOR 92/PUU-X/2012 DAN ALTERNATIF MODEL HUBUNGAN KELEMBAGAAN TERKAIT PEMBENTUKAN UNDANG-UNDANG

2015 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Enny Nurbaningsih
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Decision Authority ◽  
Presidential System ◽  
Relationship Model ◽  
Institutional Construction

Presidential System Government as the result of 1945 Constitution Amandments has not been accomplised yet since its implementation reminds anomaly. President (executive) in presidential system has decision authority to produce acts with House of Representatives (DPR), without involving People Council (DPD) as one of parlement chambers. To restore DPD legislation role, Constitutional Court Decision No. 91/PUU-X/2012 states that DPD has equal position with DPR and President in acts establishment. It implicates that DPD should be involved since the legislation planning, but still does not have authority to make decision even for bills concerned with its authority. This Constitutional Court brings about the trilateral relationship model in legislation process without any institutional construction towards interchambers relation between DPD and DPR. It will result in Judicial Review despite the involvement of DPD in phase 1 and 2 Process, since this involvement does not bind DPR and President. Sistem pemerintahan presidensial hasil revisi UUD 1945 belum tuntas karena implementasinya masih memunculkan keganjilan, Presiden (eksekutif) dalam sistem presidensial ikut mengambil keputusan untuk menghasilkan undang-undang bersama DPR, tanpa pelibatan peran DPD sebagai salah satu kamar di parlemen. Untuk memulihkan peran legislasi DPD bidang tertentu, Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 92/PUU-X/2012 menyatakan bahwa DPD berkedudukan setara dengan DPR dan Presiden dalam proses pembentukan undang-undang. Implikasi dari putusan ini DPD dilibatkan mulai dari proses perencanaan legislasi, tetapi tetap tidak dapat mengambil keputusan sekalipun untuk RUU terkait dengan kewenangannya. Putusan MK melahirkan model hubungan trilateral proses legislasi tanpa ada konstruksi secara kelembagaan terhadap hubungan interkameral antara DPR dan DPD. Hal ini akan akan berdampak pada pengujian undang-undang, walaupun DPD telah dilibatkan dalam proses tahap 1 dan tahap 2, karena pelibatan ini tidak mengikat DPR dan Presiden.

scholarly journals ANALISIS YURIDIS PENGATURAN IDEAL PENINJAUAN KEMBALI PERKARA PIDANA PASCA PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI NOMOR 34/PUU-XI/2013

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Agung Barok Pratama ◽  
Aminah . ◽  
Mohammad Jamin
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Literature Study ◽  
Law Enforcement Officials ◽  
The Ideal

<p>Abstract<br />This article  discusses the ideal setting reconsideration after the Constitutional Court decision No. 34/PUU-XII/2013. This research is legal (judicial) normative, namely by reviewing library materials (literature study). Therefore, the data used in this research is secondary data, which includes the primary legal materials, secondary, and tertiary. The results of this study showed that realizing an ideal regulatory application for review should be conducted, first, the MA should retract SEMA 7 2014 it is necessary to avoid confusion law enforcement officials and people seeking justice so as to interfere with the judicial system. If want to make additional rules to facilitate the course of justice, the MA should be poured in the form of PERMA. Second, by accelerating the process of PK and execution. Thirdly, provision PK in the future submission must be adapted to the Constitutional Court decision No. 34/PUU-X/2013. That way the material truth and justice will actually be realized.</p><p>Keywords: Judicial Review; Justice; Rule of Law; Supreme Court Decisions.</p><p>Abstrak<br />Artikel ini meneliti tentang pengaturan ideal peninjauan kembali pasca putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 34/PUU-XII/2013.Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum (yuridis) normatif, yaitu dengan mengkaji bahan-bahan pustaka (studi kepustakaan). Karena itu, data yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah data skunder, yang mencakup bahan hukum primer, skunder, dan tersier. Hasil Penelitian ini menunjukan bahwa, demi menwujudkan suatu peraturan yang ideal permohonan peninjauan kembali maka perlu dilakukan, pertama, MA harus menarik kembali SEMA No.7 Tahun 2014 hal ini ini diperlukan agar tidak terjadi kebingungan aparat penegak hukum dan masyarakat pencari keadilan sehingga dapat mengganggu sistem peradilan. Kedua, dengan mempercepat proses PK dan eksekusinya. Ketiga, ketentuan pengajuan PK kedepanya harus disesuaikan dengan putusan MK No. 34/PUU-XI/2013. Dengan begitu keadilan dan kebenaran materiil akan benar-benar dapat diwujudkan.<br />Kata kunci: Peninjauan Kembali, Keadilan, Kepastian Hukum, Putusan Mahkamah Agung</p>

PERBEDAAN TAFSIR MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI DALAM MEMUTUS PERKARA PEMILIHAN UMUM SERENTAK

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suparto Suparto
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Vice President ◽  
General Election ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legislative Elections ◽  
General Elections ◽  
Legislative Election

ABSTRAKSelama ini pemilu presiden dan pemilu legislatif dilakukan secara terpisah atau tidak serentak. Pemilu legislatif selalu dilakukan sebelum pemilu presiden dan wakil presiden. Pemilihan umum yang dilakukan secara terpisah dianggap lebih banyak dampak negatifnya serta tidak sesuai dengan UUD NRI 1945. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah deskriptif analitis dengan pendekatan peraturan perundangundangan. Rumusan masalahnya adalah bagaimanakah pertimbangan hakim konstitusi dalam memutus Putusan Nomor 14/PUU-XI/2013 sehingga terjadi perbedaan dengan putusan sebelumnya Nomor 51-52-59/PUUVI/ 2008 terkait dengan pelaksanaan pemilu serentak. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan pertimbangan hakim konstitusi dalam memutus Putusan Nomor 14/PUUXI/ 2013 tentang pengujian Undang-Undang Nomor 42 Tahun 2008 tentang Pemilihan Umum Presiden dan Wakil Presiden terjadi inkonsistensi. Putusan Nomor 14/ PUU-XI/2013 memutuskan bahwa pemilu presiden dan wakil presiden harus dilaksanakan secara bersamaan dengan pemilu anggota DPR, DPR, dan DPRD. Sedangkan dalam putusan sebelumnya yaitu Putusan Nomor 51-52-59/PUU-VI/2008 pada pengujian pasal dan undang-undang yang sama (Pasal 3 ayat (5) Undang- Undang Nomor 42 Tahun 2008), Mahkamah Konstitusi memutuskan bahwa pemilu presiden dan wakil presiden yang dilaksanakan setelah pemilu anggota DPR, DPD, dan DPRD (tidak serentak) adalah tidak bertentangan dengan UUD NRI 1945 (konstitusional). Terjadinya pertentangan putusan ini antara lain disebabkan oleh perbedaan pilihan penafsiran konstitusi.Kata kunci: inkonsistensi, mahkamah konstitusi, pemilu serentak. ABSTRACTDuring this time, the presidential and legislative elections are conducted separately or not simultaneously. The Legislative Elections are always carried out prior to the General Elections of the President and Vice President. The general election is conducted separately as considerably having more negative impacts and inconsistency with the 1945 Constitution. This analysis uses descriptive analysis method with the pertinent laws and regulations approach. The formulation of the issue is what the Constitutional Court Justices took into consideration in its Decision Number 14/PUU-XI/2013 leading to differences to that of its previous Decision Number 51- 52-59/PUU-VI/2008 concerning the implementation of simultaneous elections. The analysis results show inconsistencies in the consideration of the Constitutional Court Justices in ruling the case through the Decision Number 14/PUU-X/2013 on the judicial review of Law Number 42 of 2008 concerning the General Elections of the President and Vice President. The Constitutional Court Decision Number 14/PUU-X/2013 decided that the General Election of the President and Vice President should be implemented simultaneously with the Legislative Election for the Member of the House of Representatives, the Regional Representatives Council, and the Regional House of Representatives. As for the previous decision, the Constitutional Court Decision Number 51-52-59/PUU-VI/2008 on the judicial review of the same article and law (Article 3 (5) of Law Number 42 of 2008), the Constitutional Court decided that the elections of the President and Vice President conducted after the Legislative Election for the Member of the House of Representatives, the Regional Representatives Council, and the Regional House of Representatives (not simultaneously) is not contradictory to the 1945 Constitution. The contradiction of these decisions is partly due to the variety of interpretation on the constitution.Keywords: inconsistency, the constitutional court, simultaneous elections.

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

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document