scholarly journals THE COMPARISON BETWEEN THE JUDICIAL COMMISSION OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA AND THE NETHERLANDS COUNCIL FOR THE JUDICIARY

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 40
Author(s):  
Suparto Suparto
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Code Of Ethics ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Personnel Administration

The purpose of this study is to analyze the position and authority of the Judicial Commission of the Republic of Indonesia and its comparison to the Netherlands Council for the Judiciary. This comparative study applied a normative juridical method. The data used in this study were secondary data. The collected data were then analyzed qualitatively. The results showed that Judicial Commission has an important position in judicial system in Indonesia so as structurally, its position is aligned with the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. Yet, functionally, its role is auxiliary to the judicial power institutions. Although the function of the Judicial Commission is related to judicial power, but the Judicial Commission is not an agent of judicial power, rather, it is an agency enforcing code of ethics of judges. Besides, the Judicial Commission is also not involved in the organization, personnel, administration and financial matters of judges. This condition is different from the Judicial Commission in European countries, such as the Netherlands. The Judicial Commission in the Netherlands (The Netherlands Council for the Judiciary) has an authority in the area of technical policy and policy making in the field of justice. The Netherlands Council for the Judiciary and other Judicial Commission in European countries generally have the authority in managing organization, budget and administration as well as in conducting promotions, transfers, and recruitments as well as imposing sanctions on judges. Thus, the Supreme Court only focuses on carrying out judicial functions and does not deal with administrative and judicial organization matters.�Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui dan memahami tentang kedudukan dan kewenangan Komisi Yudisial Republik Indonesia serta perbandingannya dengan Komisi Yudisial Belanda. Metode penelitian yang digunakan yaitu yuridis normatif dengan cara perbandingan (komparatif). Data yang digunakan adalah data sekunder sedangkan analisis data dilakukan secara kualitatif. Hasil penelitian yaitu bahwa kedudukan Komisi Yudisial sangat penting, sehinggasecara struktural kedudukannya diposisikan sederajat dengan Mahkamah Agung dan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Namun demikian� secara fungsionalperannya bersifat penunjang (auxiliary) terhadap lembaga kekuasaan kehakiman. Komisi Yudisial meskipun fungsinya terkait dengan kekuasaan kehakiman tetapi bukan� pelaku kekuasaan kehakiman, melainkan lembaga penegak norma etik (code of ethics) dari hakim. Selain itu Komisi Yudisial juga tidak terlibat dalam hal organisasi, personalia, administrasi dan keuangan para hakim. Hal ini berbeda dengan Komisi Yudisial yang ada di negara Eropa misalnya Belanda. Komisi Yudisial di Belanda (Netherland Council for Judiciary) memiliki kewenangan pada area kebijakan teknis dan pembuatan kebijakan pada bidang peradilan.Komisi Yudisial Belanda dan di Eropa pada umumnya mempunyai kewenangan dalam hal mengelola organisasi, anggaran dan administrasi peradilan termasuk dalam melakukan promosi, mutasi, rekruitmen dan memberikan sanksi terhadap hakim. Mahkamah Agung hanya fokus melaksanakan fungsi peradilan yaitu mengadili

scholarly journals Implikasi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Terhadap Pembubaran Partai Politik Di Indonesia

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 227-239
Author(s):  
Hasir Budiman Ritonga
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
Party Members ◽  
The Republic

Judicial power in Indonesia under the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia shall be exercised by the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court. One of the authority of the Constitutional Court according to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia is to decide the dissolution of political parties. The facts in the current Indonesian system of ketatanegaran no cases of political parties that were dissolved through the decision of the Constitutional Court, it's just that the problem is when the Constitutional Court uses its authority to break the dissolution of political parties there are things that are formal juridically there is no clear rules, such as the legal status of party members who are not directly involved in the violation committed by the party and the status of party members who hold the position of members of the legislature both at the center and in the regions. So for that must be resolved by emphasizing the certainty, justice and benefit in the decision of the constitutional court

scholarly journals PASANG SURUT HUBUNGAN ANTARA MAHKAMAH AGUNG DENGAN KOMISI YUDISIAL DALAM SISTEM KETATANEGARAAN REPUBLIK INDONESIA

2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammad Fauzan
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Relationship

The relationship between the Supreme Court by the Judicial Commission in the Republic of Indonesia system is not harmonious, this is due to the first, the disharmony between the law on judicial power, including the law on Judicial Power, the law on the Supreme Court, the law on Constitutional Court and the law on the Judicial Commission. Both of the leadership character that exist in the Supreme Court and the Judicial Commission were too emphasizes in ego that one sector feel more superior than the others. To create a harmonious relationship between Supreme Court and Judicial Commission can be done by establishing intensive communication between both of them and by improvement in legislation. Keywords : relation, Supreme Court, Judicial Commission   

scholarly journals Judicial Review On The Authority Of National Institution In The Disbanding Of Community Organization Who Are Contradicting The 1945 Constitution Of The Republic Of Indonesia

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (12) ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Theo Negoro ◽  
Demson Tiopan ◽  
Haykal Hassanain
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Government Regulation ◽  
Community Organization ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Community Organizations ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Temporary Suspension ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Government

A community organization who contradicts the constitution will obviously disturb the common order and also disturb the system of Indonesian people and the nation itself, especially if such organization aims to change the Indonesian constitution. In Chapter XVII of Law Number 17 of 2013 regarding Community Organization, later known as the Community Organization Law, it is stated that the disbanding of community organization must go through a procedure which consist of a warning, temporary suspension and then the disbanding by the court of law. In the Community Organization Law, the disbanding of an organization is done by a Judicative Institution which is through the decision of a judicial board. However, the Government Regulation in Lieu of Law Number 2 of 2017 regarding the Amendment on Law Number 17 of 2013 regarding Community Organization, later known as the Government Regulation in Lieu of Community Organization Law states that the disbanding of a Community Organization contradicting the constitution only goes through the administrative admonition, temporary suspension of activity, and later the revocation of listed certification or the revocation of lawful institution status by the Government. The purpose of this research is to discover the authority of National Institution in disbanding Community Organization that contradicts the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and also the authoritative obstacle faced by the national institution in dissolving such organizations. This research is a normative one which researched existing secondary data as a literary data supported by empirical data acquired from interview processes. Result of the research shows that the governmental institution which in this case are the Ministry of Law and Human Rights and Judicative Institution which in this case the Supreme Court has authority to disband Community Organizations that contradicts the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia based on normative terms. However, in order to establish justice on said organization, the disbanding must be done by Judicative Institution so that it is more objective, but not by the Supreme Court, but by the Constitutional Court, due to the existence of Public Organizations being closely related to the Constitutional Right the way it is for the Political Parties. This research suggests that the disbanding of Community Organizations that contradicts the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia should be done by the Constitutional Court, preceded by material check on the applicable positive law.   Keywords: Authority; National Institution; Community Organization; Constitution

scholarly journals INDONESIAN JUDICIAL POWER POST AMENDMENT

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-95
Author(s):  
Krisnadi Nasution
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Fundamental Change ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Authority ◽  
The Republic ◽  
New Institutions ◽  
In The Beginning

Post the amendment of the Republic of Indonesia constitution, judicial authority in Indonesia underwent a fundamental change. The amendment was made based on the mandate contained in the 1945 Constitution post the amendment. Through normative juridical studies, an analysis of these changes will be carried out. The method of approach is based on statutory regulations and conceptually, as well as comprehensive. Post the amendment of the Republic of  Indonesia Constitution, in the beginning, only the Supreme Court had power in the field of justice. Then developed with the formation of new institutions in the field of justice namely: the Constitutional Court and the Judicial Commission. Through these additions, it is expected that checks and balances will occur in the formation of laws and regulations and the implementation of judicial power.

scholarly journals The Harmonization of Authority of Supreme Court, Constitution Court, and the Judicial Commission

FIAT JUSTISIA ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 45
Author(s):  
La Ode Angga La Ode Angga
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
The State ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Fifth Amendment ◽  
Absolute Power ◽  
Dead End ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Republic

The Harmonization of the Authority between Supreme Court (MA) institutions The Constitutional Court (MK) and Judicial Commission (KY) is a must. It is done by way of revision of the Law of the Supreme Court, MK and KY for the harmonization of authority. However, if the revision finds a dead end, then the fifth amendment (5) of the 1945 Constitution of the State of the Republic of Indonesia (UUDNRI 1945) is limited to be reconstructed by the provision of Article 24B paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution by affirming the authority of KY clear so that it is not considered to interfere with judicial power. The harmonization can be done by adding an institution that oversees the authority of the Constitutional Court by performing reconstruction in Article 24B paragraph (1) so that there is no more tendency of absolute power. The supervised judge is a judge of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court.  Keywords: Harmonization, Authority, Supreme Court, Constitutional Court, Judicial Commission.

scholarly journals KEWENANGAN BADAN PENGAWAS PEMILU DALAM PENANGANAN PELANGGARAN ADMINISTRASI DITINJAU DARI PERSPEKTIF SISTEM PERADILAN INDONESIA

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 74-85
Author(s):  
Alasman Mpesau
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Supervisory Board ◽  
Electoral System ◽  
General Election ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
State Institutions ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Religious Courts

In the General Election and Regional Head Election Law, the Election Supervisory Board (Bawaslu) has the authority supervisory to each Election stages, it is the center for law enforcement activities of the Election (Sentra Gakkumdu) to criminal acts and carrying out the judicial functions for investigating, examining, and decided on administrative disputes of General Election and Regional Head Election.  With the Bawaslu’s authority then placed as a super-body institution in the ranks of the Election Management Body, due to its essential role in building a clean and credible electoral system, it also has potential for abuse of power within it. In Law no. 48 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power has defined state institutions that have the authority to administrate judicial functions. These are the Supreme Court and Judicial Bodies that under its lines of general court, Religious Courts, Military Courts, Administrative Court (PTUN) and the Constitutional Court. The research method is normative juridical, that focuses on the analysis of the laws and regulations on General Election, Regional Head Elections and the Law on Judicial Power. The analytical tool is descriptive analysis, by describing the main issues, an analysis is carried out that was supported by case-approach related to the research. The study concludes that Bawaslu in carrying out judicial functions in its position as a semi-judicial institution has not a hierarchical relationship to the Supreme Court (MA) and the Constitutional Court (MK); however, what does exist is functional relationship.

scholarly journals ANALISIS PENYELESIAN SENGKETA INTERNAL LEMBAGA NEGARA (STUDI KASUS PELANTIKAN PIMPINAN DEWAN PERWAKILAN DAERAH REPUBLIK INDONESIA PERIODE 2017-2019)

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 364
Author(s):  
Yanzah Bagas Nugraha ◽  
Dwi Andayani Budisetyowati
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
State Institution ◽  
The State ◽  
The Body ◽  
Internal Conflict ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Leadership Tenure ◽  
The People ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Republic

The establishment of the Regional Representative Council of the Republic of Indonesia so called Dewan Perwakilan Daerah (DPD-RI) at least has two objectives. The first is to enhance justice for the people in the region. Secondly, to expanding and increasing the participation of local communities in national life. The process to form this state institution is done by amending the 3rd amendment of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic Indonesia. However, in doing that  amendment there was an internal conflict within the body of DPD-RI involving the old and the new leaders of this institution last year. The length of leadership tenure which was initially made 5 years was amended to became 2.5 years. The different length of leadership tenure was then canceled by the Supreme Court and it was decided to be the same as other institution such as The People’s Consultative Assembly and The House of Representative in that the leadership tenure should be in accordance with the electoral cycle of 5 years. However, although the regulation of DPD-RI has been canceled, the Supreme Court keeps sending its representative to guide the oath of position of the new DPD-RI leadership. The only regulation that has been introduced by the state was regulation toward conflict between state institutions and this conflict can merely be resolved by the Constitutional Court. Therefore, there is an urgent need for the state to seek solution to solve this problem to prevent the same thing happened to other state institution in the future.

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 KEDUDUKAN KOMISI YUDISIAL DALAM SISTEM PENYELENGGARAAN PENGAWASAN KODE ETIK HAKIM PASCA PUTUSAN MK NO 43/PUU-XIII/2015

2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 15
Author(s):  
Heru Nuswanto ◽  
Amri P. Sihotang,
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Code Of Conduct ◽  
Regulatory System ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Court Ruling ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Constitutional System ◽  
Sense Of Justice

<p>Kedudukan komisi yudisial sebagai pengawas system peradilan di Indonesia di rasa sangat penting untuk menjadikan system peradilan di Indonesia professional dan berintegritas. Persoalan kemudian hadir pasca putusan <a href="http://kepaniteraan.mahkamahagung.go.id/kegiatan/1181-putusan-mk-no-43-puu-xiii-2015-proses-seleksi-hakim-tingkat-pertama-tidak-perlu-melibatkan-ky">MK No 43/PUU-XIII/2015</a> dimana dalam putusan menjadikan Komisi Yudisial tidak lagi sebagai pihak yang ikut serta mengawasi perekrutan hakim tingkat pertama. Padahal dalam system ketatanegaraan jika lembaga komisi yudisial peran dan fungsinya dibatasi akan menjadikan mahkamah agung sebagai lembaga absolute dalam kekuasaan yudikatif.</p><p>.</p><p>Pasca putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi <a href="http://kepaniteraan.mahkamahagung.go.id/kegiatan/1181-putusan-mk-no-43-puu-xiii-2015-proses-seleksi-hakim-tingkat-pertama-tidak-perlu-melibatkan-ky"> No 43/PUU-XIII/2015</a> tidaklah menjadi penghambat Komisi Yudisial dalam melakukan penegakan kode etik. Bahkan pada sisi lain Komisi Yudisial harus mampu melakukan penerobosan penafsiran bahwa putusan tersebut semata-mata memberikan ruang dan kedudukan Komisi Yudisial untuk merespon upaya kemerdekaan kekuasaan kehakiman yang secara mandiri dan merdeka akan tetapi harus sesuai real nilai-nilai pancasila dan Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia dengan menempatkan Komisi Yudisial yang nantinya akan menguji idependensi hakim-hakim yang merupakan hasil seleksi dari Mahkamah Agung secara ketat dalam menjalankan tugas dan fungsinya sesuai dengan prinsip-prinsip dasar kode etik yang telah telah dicanangkan sesuai dengan peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku.</p><p>Status of the Judicial Commission as the regulatory system in the sense of justice in Indonesia Sangat system makes for a review of integrity and professional judiciary in Indonesia. Present Problems then after the Constitutional Court ruling No. 43/PUU-XIII/2015 Where hearts Judicial Commission Decision making is NOT Again as parties Yang Participate oversee the recruitment of judges of first instance. Whereas hearts constitutional system if Institution Role and functions of the Judicial Commission shall be limited to make the Supreme Court as the Institute for Judicial power absolute hearts.</p><p>Post a Constitutional Court decision No. 43/PUU-XIII/2015 does not become an obstacle to the Judicial Commission in enforcing the code of conduct. Even on the other side of the Judicial Commission should be able to make a breakthrough interpretation that the decision merely provides the space and the position of the Judicial Commission to respond to the efforts of the independence of judiciary is independent and free but must be corresponding real values of Pancasila and the Constitution of the Republic Indonesia by placing the Judicial Commission which will examine idependensi judges were selected from the Supreme Court strictly in performing their duties and functions in accordance with the basic principles of the code of conduct that has been implemented in accordance with the legislation in force.</p>

scholarly journals Pengujian Peraturan Pemerintah Pengganti Undang-Undang

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

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document