scholarly journals PERUBAHAN NON-FORMAL KONSTITUSI DI INDONESIA PASCA-REFORMASI BERDASARKAN PEMIKIRAN FAJRUL FALAAKH

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 93-102
Author(s):  
Aldiansyah Aldiansyah
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Legislative Review

Perubahan-perubahan Konstiusi yang ada di Indonesia Pasca-Reformasi menjadi hal yang sangat menarik untuk dibahas mulai dari perubahan Amandemen secara formal dan perubahan nonformal  yang perubahannya tanpa mengubah naskah konstitusi yang bersangkutan. Amandemen secara formal (formal amendment) hanyalah salah satu cara mengubah konstiusi. Perubahan dapat pula terjadi secara nonformal (informal change, informal amendment), yaitu perubahan konstitusi tanpa mengubah naskah konstitusi yang bersangkutan atau perubahan “di luar naskah konstitusi” (buiten de grodwet). Norma-norma konstitusi dapat berubah ketika diatur lebih lanjut dalam undang-undang oleh legislatif, atau ditafsirkan oleh hakim untuk menentukan hukum bagi suatu perkara yang diadilinya. FF menyumbang hasil penelitian dalam bukunya “Pertumbuhan dan Model Konstitusi”, untuk mendeskripsikan terjadinya perubahan nonformal konstitusi dalam ranah normatif juga dalam perspektif empirik, sehingga mendapatkan manfaat yang lebih luas. Ketidak sinkronan dalam sistem atau rezim hukum konstitusi tentu berdampak pada sistem ketatanegaraan berdasarkan UUD NRI 1945, khususnya terhadap bidang-bidang yang termuat dalam konstitusi yang mengalami perubahan nonformal. Dari bedah hasil penelitian FF, teridentifikasi akan bermanfaat sebagai bahan legislative review oleh pembentuk legislasi, judicial review oleh MK,  perubahan perilaku elite politik dan masyarakat hingga bagi politik perubahan konstitusi.

Part IV Separation of Powers, Ch.24 Review of Administrative Action

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jalan Prateek ◽  
Rai Ritin
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
Indian Constitution ◽  
Administrative Action ◽  
Administrative Review ◽  
Consistent Basis ◽  
Indian Supreme Court ◽  
Legislative Review

This chapter examines the concept of administrative review in the context of the Indian Constitution, with particular emphasis on how administrative actions are reviewed under Article 14. It first considers whether administrative review is different from legislative review, and especially whether the grounds of judicial review under Article 14 apply to the same extent when it comes to the validity of legislation compared with administrative action. It then discusses the scope of the power of administrative review under the concept of ‘reasonableness’ and whether this concept has been applied on a consistent basis. It also comments on the inherently abstract and imprecise nature of the concept of ‘reasonableness’ and how this has contributed to the lack of a judicially manageable test or standard for analysing the various cases adjudicated by the Indian Supreme Court. Finally, the chapter discusses the nature of executive power and how it may influence an adjudication of reasonableness.

scholarly journals Putusan Nomor 74/PUU-XII/2014 dan Standar Konstitusional Dispensasi Perkawinan

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 573
Author(s):  
Faiq Tobroni
Keyword(s):  
Free Will ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Legal Policy ◽  
Unmet Expectations ◽  
Legislative Review

Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK) Nomor 74/PUU-XII/2014 meninggalkan harapan yang belum terpenuhi, yakni rumusan standar konstitusional sebagai pertimbangan dalam pemberian dispensasi umur perkawinan. Makalah ini akan menjawab alasan mengapa MK menolak merumuskannya? dan bagaimana standar konstitusional yang bisa dirumuskan? MK menolak permohonan pemohon judicial review untuk menjadikan kehamilan di luar perkawinan sebagai satu-satunya standar pemberian dispensasi umur perkawinan. Penolakan ini mengisyaratkan MK menganggap bahwa hal itu merupakan open legal policy; suatu saat bisa berubah sesuai dengan kebutuhan dan konteks masyarakat. MK juga tidak menggunakan UUD 1945 untuk merumuskan rumusan standar konstitusional dispensasi perkawinan karena hal itu harus ditempuh melalui legislative review. Sebagai tawaran dari penulis dalam legislative review, standar konstitusionalnya bisa dirumuskan melalui pendekatan hukum non sistematik dan pembacaan maqashid syari’ah. Pertimbangannya harus memperhatikan perlindungan kepentingan agama (Pasal 28E ayat (1) UUD 1945), kepentingan kepastian hukum bagi pelaku (Pasal 28D ayat (1) UUD 1945), kebebasan kehendak dan keyakinan (Pasal 28E ayat (2) UUD 1945), kepentingan kesejahteraan hidup (Pasal 28H ayat (1) UUD 1945), dan hak asasi yang dimiliki keturunan (Pasal 28B ayat (1) UUD 1945).The decision of Constitutional Court Number 74/PUU-XII/2014 leaves the unmet expectations, which is the standard for an exemption in marital age. The paper will provide the answer to the reason why the Court refused to set the standard? And how the Court should formulate it as the constitutional standards? The Court rejected the petitioner arguments in the judicial review case to make pre-marital pregnancy as the only standard to set an exemption of marital age. It suggests that the Court considers it is an “open legal policy”; where the policy may change according to the needs of society. The Court also did not use the Constitution to give the interpretation on the constitutional standard in marital exemption because it must be pursued by way of review by the parliament. The author offers, in term of legislative review, that the standards can be formulated through a non-systematic legal approach and the interpretation of maqashid syari’ah. The arguments should pay attention to the protection of religious interests (Article 28E (1) of the Constitution), the interests of legal certainty of the citizens (Article 28D (1) of the Constitution), free will and belief (Article 28E (2) of the Constitution), the welfare (Article 28H (1) of the Constitution), and the rights of descendants (Article 28B (1) of the 1945 Constitution).

7. Parliament: Law-making

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Thompson ◽  
Michael Gordon
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Legislative Review ◽  
Legislative Measures ◽  
Law Making ◽  
Methods Of Control

Extracts have been chosen from a wide range of historical and contemporary cases to illustrate the reasoning processes of the courts and to show how legal principles are developed. This chapter discusses law-making. First, it considers the types of legislative measures; and then methods of control used before and during their consideration by Parliament including consultation; pre- and post-legislative review; and judicial review of delegated legislation.

scholarly journals Vetting Bills in the Scottish Parliament for Legislative Competence

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 319-351
Author(s):  
Christopher McCorkindale ◽  
Janet L Hiebert
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Empirical Examination ◽  
Constitutional Review ◽  
Political Actors ◽  
Scottish Parliament ◽  
Statutory Requirement ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Uk Government ◽  
Scottish Government ◽  
Legislative Review

In this article, Christopher McCorkindale and Janet Hiebert present the first empirical examination of the process by which bills in the Scottish Parliament undergo vetting for legislative competence. Based on a series of interviews with officials in the Scottish Government, Scottish Parliament and UK Government the paper makes a two-fold argument. First, that – despite the susceptibility of Acts of the Scottish Parliament to strong-form judicial review – the statutory requirement that the responsible minister and the Presiding Officer report to parliament on the competence of every bill, and the discretion of the Scottish and UK Government Law Officers to refer any bill to the Supreme Court before Royal Assent, align the devolution scheme with an emerging family of systems that favour legislative to judicial constitutional review. Second, that the deference shown by political actors to the advice of officials on questions of competence at each stage supplants legislative review – and its aspiration to engender a new culture of constitutional engagement – with a more closed form of bureaucratic review.

scholarly journals Fenomena Two in One Pengujian Perppu

2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 257
Author(s):  
Iskandar Muda
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Government Regulation ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Procedure ◽  
State Institutions ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Government ◽  
Legislative Review ◽  
Legal Procedures

Dua lembaga negara sama-sama berwenang menguji Peraturan Pemerintah Pengganti Undang-Undang (Perppu); Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat (DPR) “berwenang” berdasarkan Pasal 22 ayat (2) dan ayat (3) Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia 1945, sedangkan Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK) berdasarkan putusannya No. 138/PUU-VII/2009 menyatakan “berwenang pula.” Dengan adanya dua lembaga negara yang mempunyai kewenangan yang sama tersebut maka (dapat) terjadi fenomena. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum dengan menggunakan pendekatan normatif. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa ada tiga bentuk fenomena Two in One Pengujian Perppu yang (dapat) terjadi. Pertama, “judicial examination for constitutionality to Perppu pre-legislative review.” Kedua, “judicial examination for constitutionality to Perppu post-legislative review.” Ketiga, jika terjadi judicial review Perppu di MK baik dalam keadaan bentuk fenomena pertama atau fenomena kedua tetapi dalam waktu yang berlarut-larut DPR tidak memberikan keputusan tidak menyetujui atau menyetujui Perppu menjadi undang-undang. Prosedur hukum untuk bentuk fenomena kedua tidak jauh berbeda dengan prosedur hukum fenomena bentuk pertama; prosedur hukum serta yang dijadikan dasar pertimbangannya mempunyai kesamaan. Sedangkan prosedur hukum untuk bentuk fenomena ketiga perlu pula dikaji lebih lanjut secara mendalam untuk mencapai titik temu oleh dua pihak (DPR dan MK) yang berwenang menguji Perppu. Bentuk fenomena dan prosedur hukum pertama dan kedua bisa dikatakan sebagai jenis kewenangan yang bersifat pasif. Sedangkan bentuk fenomena dan prosedur hukum yang ketiga bisa dikatakan sebagai jenis kewenangan yang bersifat aktif.Two state institutions are equally authorized to test the Government Regulation in Lieu of Laws (Perppu); The House of Representatives (DPR) is “authorized” based on Article 22 paragraph (2) and paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, while the Constitutional Court (MK) based on its verdict No. 138/PUU-VII/2009 declared “authorized as well.” With the existence of two state institutions that have the same authority, then the phenomena (can) happen. This research is a legal research using normative approach. The results of the study showed that there are three forms of phenomena of Two in One Perppu review which (can) happened. First, “judicial examination for the constitutionality to Perppu pre-legislative review.” Second, “judicial examination for the constitutionality to Perppu post-legislative review.” Third, in the case of Perppu judicial review in the Constitutional Court, either in the form of the first phenomenon or the second phenomenon, yet in the long period the DPR does not give a decision whether to approve the Perppu or not into the law. The legal procedure for the form of the second phenomenon is not much different from the legal procedure of the first form phenomenon; legal procedures and the basis of their considerations are merely the same. While the legal procedure for the third form of the phenomenon should also be studied further in depth to reach the final point by two parties (DPR and MK) authorized to review the Perppu. The first and the second forms of the phenomena and legal procedures can be regarded as a kind of passive authority. While the third form of the phenomena and legal procedures can be regarded as a type of active authority.

SINKRONISASI MATERI MUATAN PERDA BERBASIS SYARIAH

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-77
Author(s):  
Hayatun Na’imah
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Hierarchical Structure ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Regional Autonomy ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Hierarchical Structure ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Legislative Review

The regional regulation (Perda) as one of the legal products prevails in the Republic of Indonesia (RI) has its place in the hierarchical structure of the Indonesian legislation. The emergence of Shari'a-based local regulations in various regions in Indonesia is related to the emergence of regional autonomy. Shari'a based regional regulations cannot be directly said to be good or not according to the law, nor can it be said to be in line with or contrary to the existing legislation. There are several parameters to assess the regional regulations, namely by the Executive Review conducted by the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Judicial Review carried out by the Supreme Court and the Legislative Review by the Legislature. Through these parameters it can be seen whether Sharia-based regional regulation (Perda) are referred to as part of the existing legislation in Indonesia.  

Establishing Judicial Review in China

2018 ◽  
pp. 170-188
Author(s):  
Qianfan Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Final Part ◽  
The Political ◽  
State Action ◽  
The Third ◽  
Legal Context ◽  
Review Mechanism ◽  
Legislative Review

This chapter analyses China’s existing mechanism of reviewing the constitutionality and legality of legislations and its deficiencies. The first part of the chapter describes the Qi Yuling case and the failure to maintain and advance a judicial review mechanism in China. The second part discusses some of the constitutional cases, mostly on equality without reference to the Constitution. The third and fourth parts explore the political and legal context for the existing review mechanism, in which the role of the judiciary is minimized and the limitations that inhere in the legislative review mechanism. The final part discusses the theoretical and practical impediments at establishing judicial review in China, and proposes several reforms aimed at evolving a suitable mechanism for ensuring conformity of state action to China’s Constitution and the laws.

scholarly journals Eksistensi dan Karakteristik Putusan Bersyarat Mahkamah Konstitusi

2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 348
Author(s):  
Faiz Rahman ◽  
Dian Agung Wicaksono
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Positive Law ◽  
Legislative Review ◽  
Research Show

The result of this legal research show the existence of conditionally constitutional and conditionally unconstitutional decision in reviewing laws from 2003 to 2015, although that model of decision is not regulated in the positive law.  There are 5 characteristics of conditionally constitutional decision, those are (1)  Court  gives interpretation or certain requirements in order to remain constitutional provisions tested throughout implemented according to the specified requirements of the Constitutional Court; (2) based on the rejected verdict; (3) a conditionally constitutional clause can be found only on the consideration of the Court, or can be found on the judgment and injunction; (4) conditionally constitutional decision require re-judicial review if the norm is not in line with the interpretation of the Constitutional Court; (5) encouraging legislative review. Regarding the conditionally unconstitutional decision, there are 4 characteristics, those are (1) the verdict certainly include a conditionally unconstitutional clause; (2) a conditionally verdict can be the meaning or interpretation of a norm, or give the terms of the norm is unconstitutional; (3) based on the granted verdict either partially or completely; (4) does not substantially different from the conditionally constitutional clause.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document