scholarly journals Límites materiales y territoriales a la actuación de la policía local como policía judicial: a propósito de la STS n.º 210/2016, Sala 2.ª, de lo Penal, de 15 de marzo de 2016

2017 ◽  
pp. 253-272
Author(s):  
Manuel IZQUIERDO CARRASCO ◽  
Juan Jesús ALCÁNTARA REIFS
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Basque Country ◽  
Autonomic Regulation ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Territorial Jurisdiction ◽  
Local Police ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Pais Vasco

LABURPENA: Auzitegi Gorenaren epai berri bat aztertzen du lanak. Epaiak, prozesu penal batean froga batzuk onartu ez izanari buruzko eztabaidaren harira, udaltzaingoek euren udalerritik kanpo jarduteko gaiari heltzen dio. Oinarri horrekin, udaltzaingoak polizia judizialeko elkarlan-eginkizunetan jardutea ahalbidetzen duten arauen oinarria azaltzen dute epaiak eta azterlan honek, haren mugei helduz. Muga horiei dagokienez, arreta berezia jartzen zaio udaltzaingoak jarduteko lurralde-eremuari, eta kritikoki azaltzen da Segurtasun Indar eta Kidegoen Lege Organikoan jasotako erregulazio desegokia, Euskal Autonomia Erkidegoko araudi autonomikoa, Konstituzio Auzitegiaren doktrina anbiguoa eta epai horrek horri guztiari ematen dion aplikazioa. Azkenik, lurralde-eskumena dela-eta legez kontrakotasuneko akatsa duten polizia-jardueretan lortutako frogen baliozkotasunari dagokionez epaiak defendatutako jarrera aztertzen du. RESUMEN: El trabajo analiza una reciente sentencia del Tribunal Supremo que, al hilo de la discusión de la inadmisión de unas pruebas en un proceso penal, se enfrenta a la cuestión de la actuación fuera de su término municipal por parte de los Cuerpos de la Policía Local. Con este presupuesto, la sentencia y el presente estudio exponen la base normativa que permite la actuación de la Policía Local en funciones colaborativas de Policía Judicial, centrándose en sus límites. En cuanto a esos límites, se presta una especial atención al ámbito territorial de actuación de la Policía Local, exponiendo de manera crítica la inadecuada regulación contenida en la Ley Orgánica de Fuerzas y Cuerpos de Seguridad, la normativa autonómica del País Vasco, la ambigua doctrina del Tribunal Constitucional y la aplicación que de todo ello efectúa la sentencia comentada. Finalmente, también se examina la posición mantenida por la sentencia en lo relativo a la validez de las pruebas obtenidas en actuaciones policiales que adolezcan de un vicio de ilegalidad por motivos de competencia territorial. ABSTRACT: The paper analyzes a recent judgment by the Supreme Court that in view of the discussion regarding the bar to proceeding with the evidences in a criminal process deals with the question of the activities carried out by the local police corps outside its municipal area. Under that premise, the judgment and this study set out the legal basis that allows the local police activities as collaborative to the judicial police, focusing on its limits. As far as those limits are concerned, special attention is devoted to the geographical sphere of action of local police stating critically the inadequate regulation by the Organic Act of Law enforcement authorities, the autonomic regulation from the Basque Country, the ambiguous doctrine by the Constitutional Court and the application of all of it in the aforementioned ruling. Finally, we examine also the position sustained by the judgment regarding the validity of evidences obtained in the frame of police activities legally flawed due to lack of territorial jurisdiction.

scholarly journals KEPASTIAN HUKUM MENGENAI PERBEDAAN ANTARA PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH AGUNG DAN PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI TERKAIT PENCALONAN PERSEORANGAN PESERTA PEMILU ANGGOTA DPD

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rasji . ◽  
Cinthia .
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Court Ruling ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Law And Justice

Indonesia is a country based on the law (rechstaat) whose basis is stated in Article 1 Paragraph (3) of the UUD NRI 1945. The essential principles of the rule of law based on Article 24 Paragraph (1) of the UUD NRI 1945 are the guarantee of the organizer of the power of an independent judicial institution without interference from other parties to hold a court to uphold law and justice. Ideally, the results of the two institutions' decisions do not cause problems in society. However, the results of the decisions of the two institutions are still found differently regarding the issue of nominating individual participants in the members of the Regional Representatives Council. Any other way, the results of the Constitutional Court ruling prohibited members of the Regional Representatives Council who were still in the position of administrators of political parties. Meanwhile, the decision of the Supreme Court allows candidates for members of the Regional Representatives Council who are still in the position of managing political parties. In this study, the researcher will examine the differences between the Supreme Court's decision and the Constitutional Court's decision regarding the nomination of individual participants in the Regional Representatives Council by using normative legal methods and conducting interviews as supporting data. The results of the study revealed that based on the legal basis and authority of the institution, the verdict that had legal certainty regarding the nomination of individual participants in the Regional Representatives Council election was the decision of the Constitutional Court.

scholarly journals INDONESIAN JUSTICE LEGAL POLITICS POST AMENDMENT OF 1945 CONSTITUTION

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-56
Author(s):  
Aladin Sirait
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Code Of Ethics ◽  
Code Of Conduct ◽  
State Institution ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Creation

The essence of change in the field of justice after the amendment is a change in the system of judicial power at the constitutional and statutory levels. The creation of new supreme judicial institutions namely the Constitutional Court, in addition to the Supreme Court as the bearer and executor of the highest judicial powers in the presence of an independent Judicial Commission and cannot be separated from the powers of the judiciary. Legal politics that gave birth to the Constitutional Court Institution in its scope of duties and authority has played a large and important role in the goal of realizing justice. The Judicial Commission in its duties and authorities can substantially improve law enforcement in the environment and justice within the Supreme Court by proposing the appointment of a Chief Justice to the House of Representatives (DPR). The Supreme Court made progress with the issuance of Guidelines for the Implementation of Oversight within the Judiciary and the Joint Decree of the Chair of the Supreme Court and the Chair of the Judicial Commission on the Code of Ethics and the Code of Conduct for Judges. The Constitutional Court and Judicial Commission in its position as a high state institution with a strict division of tasks and authority has played a role in the creation of checks and balances mechanisms.

scholarly journals Masalah Eksekutabilitas Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi oleh Mahkamah Agung

2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 171
Author(s):  
Budi Suhariyanto
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Reform ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Relationship Of

Normatively constitutional court and supreme of court has on equal position with a different authority. However, there is a relationship of authority and point of contact. Morever, potential to cause disharmony on law enforcement. For example, on implementation of the constitutional court’s decision directly followed by the decision of the supreme court but some others not. The constitutional court’s decision characteristic are final and binding general (erga omnes), at the same level with legislation (negatif legislator), undirectly binding and enforced by the supreme court. Fundamentally, judge at the supreme court and the courts below is not a mouthpiece of the law, therefore it has some authority to interpre the statute (was also againts the decision of the constitutional court) to be applied on cases they handle. Although the judges decision of the supreme court do not decide on the validity and constitutionality of the norm, but through the efforts of the discovery  or the interpretation of the law can gives an effect to the law enforcement and the establishment of a progressive and responsive legal reform.

scholarly journals PENYELESAIAN PERSELISIHAN HASIL PEMILIHAN KEPALA DAERAH PASCA PUTUSAN MK NO. 97/PUU-XI.2013

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 139
Author(s):  
Indra Hendrawan
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Government Regulation ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Law ◽  
Dispute Resolution Mechanism ◽  
Regional Leaders

Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2015 tentang Penetapan Perpu Nomor 1 Tahun 2014 tentang Pemilihan Gubernur, Bupati dan Walikota Menjadi Undang-Undang mengamanatkan Mahkamah Agung sebagai lembaga yang berwenang menyelesaikan perselisihan hasil pemilihan kepala daerah. Namun tanpa sempat diimplementasikan, Undang-Undang tersebut telah direvisi kembali melalui Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 2015 dengan melimpahkan penyelesaian perselisihan hasil pemilihan ke badan peradilan khusus. Perubahan Undang-Undang secara cepat tersebut telah menimbulkan pertanyaan, kemanakah arah kebijakan penyelesaian perselisihan di masa mendatang? Dengan pendekatan yuridis normative, tulisan ini mencoba menguraikan refleksi penyelesaian perselisihan di Mahkamah Agung ataupun Mahkamah Konstitusi selama satu dasawarsa terakhir untuk mendapatkan penanganan ideal yang harus dilakukan dalam rangka perbaikan penanganan perselisihan hasil pemilihan kepala daerah di masa mendatang. Berdasarkan hal tersebut, penempatan hakim-hakim yang berintegritas, mumpuni serta yang mengedepankan keadilan substantif dalam penyelesaian perselisihan merupakan hal mutlak yang harus dilakukan. Selain itu, perbaikan juga tidak cukup hanya pada tahap penanganan perselisihan hasil saja, perlu pula ada optimalisasi penegakan hukum di tahap-tahap sebelumnya yang dilakukan oleh KPU, Bawaslu/Panwaslu, DKPP ataupun penegak hukum lainnya.<p>Law No. 1 of 2015 on Enactment of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 1 of 2014 concerning the election of Governor, the Regent and Mayor Become Law mandates the Supreme Court as an authorized institution to settle disputes about electoral result from the local election for regional leaders. However, without a chance to be implemented, the Law has been revised by Law No. 8 of 2015 in which any disputes that arise from the results of the election are delegated to a special judicial body. The ammendment has raised question, to where the policy of dispute resolution will be directed in the future? Using normative juridical approach, this paper tries to elaborate the reflection of dispute resolution in the Supreme Court or the Constitutional Court during the last decade to find out ideal treatment should be applied in order to improve the dispute resolution mechanism in the future. So, the placement of judges who have integrity, capability, and put the substantive fairness in the dispute resolution is absolute term. In addition, the improvement is not enough in just handling the dispute resolution stage, there should also be optimizing of the the law enforcement in the earlier stages that were carried out by the General Election Commission, Bawaslu/Panwaslu, DKPP or other law enforcement bodies.</p>

scholarly journals Optimalisasi Peran Hakim Agung dalam Penyelesaian Perkara Kasasi dan Peninjauan Kembali

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 373
Author(s):  
Dudu Duswara Machmudin
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Law Enforcement Agencies ◽  
Judicial Process ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Before And After ◽  
The One

This article aims to provide knowledge and understanding on the functions of the state law enforcement agencies in Indonesia. Differences of powers and functions of law enforcement agencies such as the Supreme Court, Attorney General’s Office and the Constitutional Court needs to be understood in depth. Furthermore, given the problems in all courts all over the world which is, among others, the slow settlement of cases, this article describes and analyses the role of Supreme Court Justices in resolving cassation and review cases before and after the issuance of the decree of the Chief Justice Number 119/KMA/SK/VII/2013 regarding the determination of the Day of Deliberation and Pronouncement and Number 214/KMA/SK/XII/2104 concerning Time Period for the Handling of Cases at the Supreme Court. However, when Constitutional Court pronounced Ruling Number 34/PUU-XI/2013 a problem arises in which the products of the two state judicial bodies seem to be inconsistent, especially in the framework for the resolution of criminal cases. On the one hand, the Supreme Court wants the creation of a judicial process that is simple, speedy, and low cost through the strengthening of the two products above, but on the    other hand the Constitutional Court through its award extend the time span of litigation process for the settlement of review cases which can be done repeatedly. Thus, in order to provide legal certainty, the Supreme Court issued Supreme Court Circular Number 7 Year 2014 which essentially affirms that the petition for review in criminal cases is limited only one time based on other legal basis namely Judicial Authority Act and Supreme Court Act.

Hearing of Cases about Indemnification, Caused to the Environment: Procedural Questions ofJudicial Practice

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 48-58
Author(s):  
M. A. Fokina ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Research Gaps ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation

Research objective is the analysis of practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on cases of indemnification caused to the environment. Proceeding their concepts of integrative right understanding the author reveals the importance of legal positions of the supreme judicial authorities for law-enforcement practice of inferior courts by hearing of cases about indemnification, caused to the environment. During the research gaps in the current legislation and ways of their completion in judicial practice are revealed. Methods. As methods of a research the legallistic method, synthesis, the analysis, induction, deduction were used. Results. The research showed certain shortcomings and gaps of legal regulation of an order of the indemnification caused the environment. Legal positions of the supreme courts which allowed to meet lacks and shortcomings of the legislation are revealed and analysed and to provide appropriate protection of the rights of citizens and legal entities.

Errátum

2015 ◽  
Vol 156 (19) ◽  
pp. 792-792
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Short Introduction ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
The Supreme Court

The overall goal of this study is a short introduction into the Hungarian legal basis, and practical circumstances of informed consent trough the cases of the Data Protection Commissioner of Hungary, the Supreme Court of Hungary, and the Constitutional Court. The author begins by describing the basic law with an introduction to the dogmatic background of informed consent, as a common law category.

scholarly journals RAPUHNYA BENTENG KEADILAN DI INDONESIA (Kajian terhadap kekuasaan kehakiman (peradilan) sebagai benteng keadilan dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana)

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdul Kholiq
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Main Role ◽  
Constitutional Design ◽  
The Supreme Court

Abstrak Penegakan hukum dengan menggunakan sistem peradilan pidana berarti mengimplementasikan bekerjanya dalam setiap tahapan peradilan pidana, yaitu tahapan penyidikan, penuntutan, peradilan dan pelaksanaan putusan. Permasalahan konseptual yang menyangkut struktur penegakan hukum pidana, bersumber dari sistem penegakan hukum yang dibangun berdasarkan desain konstitusional. Pasca amandemen ke III terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar 1945, yang kemudian juga diikuti terbitnya Undang-Undang Nomor 48 Tahun 2009 Tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman sebagai peraturan pelaksana, terhadap koreksi pada Kekuasaan Kehakiman. Kekuasaan kehakiman dijalankan dan dipegang oleh badan peradilan, hal ini sesuai dalam teori maupun ketentuan dalam peraturan perundang-undangan. Badan peradilan di Indonesia yang menjalankan kekuasaan kehakiman berdasarkan hasil amandemen Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 adalah Mahkamah Agung, Mahkamah Konstitusi dan pengadilan-pengadilan tingkat lebih rendah yang di bawah Mahkamah Agung. Ketentuan tersebut juga diatur secara eksplisit di dalam Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 Pasal 24 Ayat (2). Pengadilan selama ini dijadikan sebagai suatu simbolik bagi masyarakat untuk mencapai tujuan-tujuan hukum khususnya keadilan dari permasalahan atau sengketa-sengketa hukum yang harus diselesaikan. Supremasi hukum akan dapat berjalan secara maksimal tatkala komponen-komponen dalam penegakan hukum yang tersistem ke dalam bentuk sistem peradilan pidana yang integral. Dalam penegakan hukum yang juga berhubungan dengan kekuasaan kehakiman, maka peran yang utama yaitu hakim-hakim pengadilan. Kata Kunci: Penegakan Hukum, Kekuasaan Kehakiman, Sistem Peradilan Pidana. Abstract Law enforcement by using the criminal justice system means implementing its work at every stage of criminal justice, namely the stages of investigation, prosecution, trial and implementation of decisions. Conceptual issues concerning the structure of criminal law enforcement are derived from a law enforcement system that is built on constitutional design. After the third amendment to the Constitution of 1945, which was also followed by the issuance of Law Number 48 of 2009 on Concerning Judicial Power as the implementing regulation, against correction to Judicial Power. Judicial power is carried out and held by the judiciary, this is in accordance with the theory and provisions in the legislation. Judicial bodies in Indonesia that exercise judicial authority based on the amendments to the Constitution of 1945 are the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court and lower-level courts under the Supreme Court. These provisions are also explicitly regulated in the Constitution of 1945 in Article 24 Paragraph (2). The court has been used as a symbolic for the community to achieve legal objectives, especially justice from problems or legal disputes that must be resolved. The supremacy of law will be able to run maximally when the components in systemic law enforcement are in the form of an integral criminal justice system. In law enforcement which also relates to judicial power, the main role is court judges. Keyword: Law Enforcement, Judicial Power, Criminal Justice System.

scholarly journals Mewujudkan Keadilan Melalui Upaya Hukum Peninjauan Kembali pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 328
Author(s):  
M. Lutfi Chakim
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The Public ◽  
Binding Force ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Legal Remedy ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Pros And Cons

The reconsideration is an extraordinary legal remedy to the decision of Court that have legally binding (inkracht van gewisjde). The Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 34/PUU-XI/2013 stated that extraordinary legal remedy aims to obtain justice and truth material, so the provisions of Article 268 paragraph (3) Criminal Procedure Code states that, “request reconsideration of a decision can only be done once only” contrary to the 1945 Constitution and does not have binding force. The decision of Constitutional Court raises the pros and cons, on one side there are statements that reconsideration more than once is an effort to protect the rights of the public in obtaining justice, but on the other side there are statements that reconsideration is more than once is a violation of the principle of legal certainty. After analyzing the decision of the Constitutional Court No. 34/PUU-XI/2013  it could be concluded that, first, the reconsideration is more than once in accordance with the public interest to obtain justice in law enforcement, because in obtaining justice and truth material can not be limited by time. Second, the decision of the Constitutional Court are final and binding, despite raises the pros and cons, then all are required to implement the decision of the Constitutional Court. Therefore, the Supreme Court is expected to soon complete the Regulation of the Supreme Court about filing reconsideration in criminal cases by adjusting the decision of the Constitutional Court.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document