scholarly journals The Crime Of Damage After the Constitutional Court's Decision Number 76/PUU-XV/2017

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdul Kadir Jaelani ◽  
Resti Dian Luthviati
Keyword(s):  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Electronic Transactions ◽  
Freedom Of Thought ◽  
The Republic

From 2009 until now, there have been 30 cases tried by the Court with the use of Article 27 paragraph (3) of Law Number 19 of 2016 concerning Amendments to Law Number 11 of 2008 concerning Information and Electronic Transactions. These various cases have raised opinions from some people who consider defamation offenses contrary to the spirit of reform that upholds freedom of thought and expression. Crime of reputation after the Constitutional Court Decision Number 50/PUU-VI/2008, Constitutional Court Decision Number 2/PUU-VII/2009, Constitutional Court Decision Number 5/PUU-VIII/2010, Constitutional Court Decision Number 31/PUU-XIII/ 2015, and the Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 76/PUU-XV/2017 concerning the Review of Law Number 19 of 2016 concerning Amendments to Law Number 11 of 2008 regarding Information and Electronic Transactions against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia are regulated in detail with one of the points, namely making changes in Article 27 paragraph (3) of the ITE Law and reducing criminal threats in 2 (two) provisions. Keywords: Reputation Offenses; Legal Certainty; Constitutional Court.

scholarly journals Tinjauan Hukum Pencemaran Nama Baik Terhadap Pejabat Negara: Kajian atas Putusan Hakim Nomor 341/Pid.B/2014/PN.SGM

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 44
Author(s):  
Orin Gusta Andini
Keyword(s):  
Legal History ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
District Courts ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
Library Research ◽  
Electronic Transactions ◽  
The Republic

 AbstrakSejak 2009 hingga saat ini terdapat 30 kasus yang diadili oleh Pengadilan Negeri di Indonesia dengan menggunakan Pasal 27 ayat (3) Undang-Undang Nomor 19 Tahun 2016 tentang Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2008 tentang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik. Berbagai kasus tersebut memunculkan opini dari sebagian masyarakat yang menganggap pasal-pasal delik pencemaran nama baik bertentangan dengan semangat reformasi yang menjunjung kebebasan berpendapat dan berekspresi. Jenis penelitian ini adalah penelitian hukum normatif. Tulisan ini berkesimpulan bahwa tindak pidana reputasi pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 50/PUU-VI/2008, Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 2/PUU-VII/2009, Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 5/PUU-VIII/2010,  Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 31/PUU-XIII/2015 dan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 76/PUU-XV/2017 tentang Pengujian Undang-Undang Nomor 19 Tahun 2016 tentang Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2008 tentang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945 diatur secara terperinci dengan salah satu pointnya yaitu melakukan perubahan dalam Pasal 27 ayat (3) UU ITE dan menurunkan ancaman pidana pada 2 (dua) ketentuan.Kata Kunci: Delik Reputasi, Kepastian Hukum dan Mahkamah Konstitusi.Abstract  Since 2009 until now there have been 30 cases tried by the District Courts in Indonesia using Article 27 paragraph (3) of Law Number 19 Year 2016 concerning Amendments to Law Number 11 Year 2008 concerning Information and Electronic Transactions. These various cases gave rise to opinions from some people who considered the articles of defamation offenses contrary to the spirit of reform which upheld the freedom of opinion and expression. This type of research is normative legal research. Normative legal research prioritizes library research with a focus on studies of legal principles, legal systematics, legal synchronization and legal history, this research is also descriptive. This study concluded that the crime of reputation after the decision of the Constitutional Court Number 50 / PUU-VI / 2008, Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 2 / PUU-VII / 2009, Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 5 / PUU-VIII / 2010, Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 31 / PUU-XIII / 2015 and Constitutional Court Decision Number 76 / PUU-XV / 2017 concerning Testing of Law Number 19 Year 2016 concerning Amendment to Law Number 11 Year 2008 concerning Information and Electronic Transactions of the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia Year 1945 is regulated in detail with one of the points, namely making changes in Article 27 paragraph (3) of the ITE Law and reducing criminal threats in 2 (two) provisions.Keywords: Reputation Delik, Legal Certainty and the Constitutional Court.

scholarly journals BATASAN TERHADAP IMUNITAS ADVOKAT YANG DIPERLUAS BERDASARKAN PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI NOMOR 26/PUU-XI/2013

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 38-48
Author(s):  
Oey Valentino Winata ◽  
Wisnu Aryo Dewanto
Keyword(s):  
Code Of Ethics ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Professional Code ◽  
Court Proceedings ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right

The basis for granting immunity to advocates is in Article 16 of Law No. 18 of 2003, that advocates cannot be prosecuted both civil and criminal in carrying out their professional duties in good faith in the interests of the Client's defense in court proceedings. The immunity obtained by advocates is not only within the scope of the court, but also protects it outside the court. The immunity has been expanded based on the Constitutional Court Decision Number 26 / PUU-XI / 2013. The granting of immunity to such advocates is considered as an act that violates the provisions of Article 28 D of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, that everyone has the right to recognition, guarantee protection and fair legal certainty and equal treatment before the law. However, the right to immunity from lawsuits (immunity) to advocates does not conflict with Article 28D of the 1945 Constitution if given with limitations to advocates who are one of law enforcers in Indonesia, these restrictions apply both outside and in court proceedings. The limitation is in the form of a professional code of ethics and legislation, as well as good faith. Any action that goes beyond or beyond these three limits cannot be protected by immunity, so that if one of the three limits is exceeded, advocates can be legally processed and sentenced based on applicable regulations.Dasar pemberian imunitas kepada advokat ada pada Pasal 16 UU No. 18 Tahun 2003, bahwa advokat tidak dapat dituntut baik secara perdata maupun pidana dalam menjalankan tugas profesinya dengan iktikad baik untuk kepentingan pembelaan Klien dalam sidang pengadilan. Imunitas yang didapatkan advokat ternyata tidak hanya dalam lingkup pengadilan, tetapi juga melindunginya diluar pengadilan. Imunitas tersebut telah diperluas berdasarkan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 26/PUU-XI/2013. Pemberian imunitas kepada advokat tersebut dianggap sebagai suatu perbuatan yang melanggar ketentuan Pasal 28D Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia 1945, bahwa setiap orang berhak atas pengakuan, jaminan perlindungan dan kepastian hukum yang adil serta perlakuan yang sama dihadapan hukum. Tetapi hak atas kekebalan dari tuntutan hukum (imunitas) kepada advokat tersebut menjadi tidak bertentangan dengan Pasal 28D UUD 1945 apabila diberikan dengan batasan-batasan kepada advokat yang merupakan salah satu penegak hukum di Indonesia, batasan tersebut berlaku baik di luar maupun di dalam sidang pengadilan. Batasan tersebut berupa kode etik profesi dan peraturan perundang-undangan, serta iktikad baik. Setiap tindakan yang melampaui atau diluar ketiga batasan tersebut, tidak bisa dilindungi oleh imunitas, sehingga atas dilampauinya salah satu dari ketiga batasan tersebut maka advokat dapat diproses secara hukum dan dijatuhi hukuman berdasarkan peraturan yang berlaku.

scholarly journals Pelaksanaan Klausul Penyelesaian Sengketa Dalam Akad Perbankan Syariah Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia Nomor : 93/PUU-X/2012 Pada Bank Syariah Mandiri KCP Indramayu

Jurnal Akta ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 147
Author(s):  
Mahpudin Mahpudin ◽  
Akhmad Khisni
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Choice Of Law ◽  
Legal Uncertainty ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Dispute Resolution Mechanism

ABSTRAKPutusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia Nomor : 93/PUU-X/2012 Tanggal 29 Agustus 2013 telah membatalkan Penjelasan Pasal 55 ayat (2) Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 21 Tahun 2008 Tentang Perbankan Syariah adalah soal kepastian hukum. Hal ini dikarenakan dalam Penjelasan pasal 55 ayat (2) menimbulkan ketidakpastian hukum antara pilihan hukum dalam lingkup peradilan umum dengan pilihan hukum dalam lingkup peradilan agama. Kepastian hukum secara normatif adalah ketika suatu peraturan dibuat dan diundangkan secara pasti karena dapat memberikan pengaturan secara jelas dan logis. Jelas dalam arti tidak menimbulkan keragu-raguan atau multi tafsir, dan logis dalam arti hukum tersebut menjadi suatu sistem norma dengan norma lain sehingga tidak berbenturan atau menimbulkan konflik norma ataupun adanya kekaburan dan kekosongan norma. Asas ini dapat dipergunakan untuk dapat mengatasi persoalan dalam hal konsep mekanisme dan pilihan hukum dalam penyelesaian sengketa perbankan syariah;Pilihan forum penyelesaian sengketa Perbankan Syariah berdasarkan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia Nomor : 93/PUU-X/2012 Tanggal 29 Agustus 2013 yang membatalkan Penjelasan Pasal 55 ayat (2) Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 21 Tahun 2008 Tentang Perbankan Syariah harus dinyatakan secara tegas menyatakan dan menyepakati apakah memilih forum Arbitrase Syariah atau menentukan pilihan forum Pengadilan Agama dalam rumusan klausula Penyelesaian Perselisihan atau Sengketa dalam Akad Perbankan Syariahnya. Artinya memilih atau menentukan salah satu forum mekanisme penyelesaian sengketa syariah yaitu forum BASYARNAS atau Pengadilan Agama, bukan menggabungkan keduanya dalam satu rangkaian rumusan klausula penyelesaian sengketa.Kata kunci : klausul penyelesaian sengketa, akad perbankan syariah, putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi ABSTRACTDecision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number 93 / PUU-X / 2012 dated August 29, 2013 has annulled the Elucidation of Article 55 paragraph (2) of Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 21 Year 2008 concerning Sharia Banking is a matter of legal certainty. This is because in the Elucidation of article 55 paragraph (2) raises legal uncertainty between the choice of law within the scope of general justice with the choice of law within the scope of religious court. Normative legal certainty is when a rule is created and enacted as it can provide clear and logical arrangements. Clearly in the sense that there is no doubt or multi-interpretation, and logical in the sense that the law becomes a system of norms with other norms so as not to clash or cause conflict of norms or the existence of vagueness and void norms. This principle can be used to solve the problem in terms of the concept of mechanism and choice of law in solving the dispute of sharia banking;The choice of dispute resolution forum of Sharia Banking pursuant to Decision of Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number 93 / PUU-X / 2012 dated August 29, 2013 which annul the Elucidation of Article 55 paragraph (2) of Law of Republic of Indonesia Number 21 Year 2008 concerning Sharia Banking must be stated expressly declare and agree on whether to vote for a Shari'ah Arbitration Forum or to determine the choice of Religious Court forums in the formulation of a Clause or Dispute Settlement clause in its Sharia Banking Agreement. It means choosing or determining one of the forums of dispute resolution mechanism of sharia namely BASYARNAS or Religious Court, not merging the two in a series of dispute settlement clause formulas.Keywords: clause of dispute settlement, syariah banking contract, Constitutional Court decision

scholarly journals Efektivitas Kekuatan Eksekutorial Pada Sertifikat Jaminan Fidusia Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PUU-XVII/2019

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dinda Laras Ayu Pratiwi ◽  
Andi Salman Maggalatung ◽  
Nurhasanah Nurhasanah
Keyword(s):  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Principle Of Justice

This research contains an analysis of the considerations of the Constitutional Court in deciding the Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019 and the effectiveness of its implementation. This research uses the juridical-normative method and the legal material comes from the Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/ 2019 and other decisions. The results of this research revealed that the decision was based on the principle of justice and legal certainty. The implementation itself has not been going well because there are still several unfulfilled factors.

scholarly journals Tafsir Wewenang Seponering Jaksa Agung Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 29/PUU-XIV/2016

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilham Dwi Rafiqi
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Attorney General ◽  
State Power ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
The Public ◽  
Legal Implications ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Definition Of

The affirmation of the attorney general's authority in the Elucidation of Article 35 letter C of the Indonesian Prosecutor's Law after the decision of the Constitutional Court Number 29/PUU-XIV/2016 still leaves problems and has the potential to cause new legal problems. This research will look at and analyze how the authority of the Attorney General after the decision is as well as how the concept of an ideal arrangement that ensures legal certainty. This research uses normative juridical research with a statutory approach and case studies which in this case are court decisions. The results showed that after Constitutional Court decision, there was a change in the meaning of the Elucidation of Article 35 letter c of the Republic of Indonesia Prosecutor's Law. Based on the results of these interpretations and decisions, the legal implications that followed were related to the conditions for setting aside cases in the public interest, namely in setting aside cases in the public interest, the Attorney General was required to 'require' first to pay attention to suggestions and opinions from state power agencies that have relationship with the problem. The concept of an ideal arrangement that can guarantee legal certainty as an indicator to measure and assess the implementation of the Attorney General's obligations can be done by clarifying the definition of "state power agencies" for which advice and opinions are requested and making criteria for the term "public interest".

scholarly journals Implikasi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 85/PUU-XIV/2016 terhadap Praktek Persekongkolan Tender

2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 369
Author(s):  
Titis Anindyajati
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Research Methodology ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
The Law

Pada pokoknya, persekongkolan tender merupakan salah satu bentuk persekongkolan yang dilarang UU Nomor 5/1999 tentang Larangan Praktek Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat dan juga menjadi perkara yang paling sering diproses KPPU. Namun baik secara teoritis maupun praktik menimbulkan permasalahan yaitu karena adanya pemaknaan yang bias akan frasa “pihak lain” dalam Pasal 22 UU Nomor 5/1999. Hal inilah yang melatarbelakangi adanya pengujian Pasal 22 ke MK. Dalam penulisan ini yang dibahas yaitu bagaimana pengaturan persekongkolan tender menurut peraturan perundang-undangan, bagaimanakah implikasi yuridis Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 85/PUU-XIV/2016 tentang pengujian Pasal 22 UU Nomor 5/1999 serta bagaimana analisis hukum terhadap pertimbangan hukum Putusan MK tersebut. Penelitian ini menggunakan penelitian yuridis normatif dimana obyek penelitian ini adalah peraturan perundang-undangan dan Putusan MK. Dalam hal ini Penulis menyimpulkan, yaitu, Pertama, persekongkolan tender yang merupakan suatu bentuk kerja sama antara dua pihak atau lebih untuk menguasai pasar yang bersangkutan dan/atau memenangkan peserta tender yang mengakibatkan terjadinya persaingan usaha tidak sehat diatur secara eksplisit dalam Pasal 1 angka 8 dan Pasal 22 UU Nomor 5/1999 serta Peraturan KPPU Nomor 2/2010, Kedua, Implikasi yuridis Putusan MK Nomor 85/PUU-XIV/2016 bermanfaat untuk menjamin kepastian hukum dan keadilan bagi para pihak seperti pengusaha utamanya masyarakat. Untuk itu, perlu adanya harmonisasi antara satu peraturan dengan peraturan lainnya, pengujian UU terhadap UUD terkait pengaturan persekongkolan tender dalam persaingan usaha tidak sehat ataupun revisi terhadap UU Nomor 5/1999.Principally, tender conspiracy is one form of conspiracy that subjected by the Law No. 5/1999 on The Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition, and also as a type of case that frequently occurred and processed by the KPPU. However, in theory, and in practice, there are some issues that plague the regulation, because of the occurrence of bias and unclear interpretation of the phrases “other parties” contained in Article 22 of Law 5/1999. This interpretation issue then became the background in the petition for review of Article 22 to the Constitutional Court. This paper mainly discussed the regulation of tender conspiracy according to the existing Law, and also to study the juridical implications of Constitutional Court Decision Number 85/PUU-XIV/2016 concerning the review of Article 22 Law 5/1999. This paper also delves into the legal analysis of the court considered in the aforementioned Decision. This paper utilized the means of normative juridical research methodology, with the existing regulations and Constitutional Court Decision as the object of research. In the paper, the writer concludes that, first, tender conspiracy is a form of cooperation between one party or more to control particular market and/or to determine the awardees of tenders which may cause unfair business competition explicitly regulated in Article 1 number 8 and Article 22 Law 5/1999 and also the KPPU Regulation Number 2/2010, second, the juridical implications of Constitutional Court Decision Number 85/PUU-XIV/2016 was necessary in order to guarantee the equitable legal certainty and fairness toward all parties especially business practising citizens. Thus, there is a necessity to achieve harmony among these regulations, which can be obtained through the judicial review of laws against the Constitution concerning the regulations of tender conspiracy and by means of legislative revision toward Law 5/1999.

scholarly journals Sikap Mahkamah Konstitusi Mengenai Keberlakuan Perjanjian Internasional dalam Hubungannya dengan Hukum Nasional

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 329
Author(s):  
Gede Marhaendra Wija Atmaja ◽  
Nyoman Mas Aryani ◽  
Anak Agung Sri Utari ◽  
Ni Made Ari Yuliartini Griadhi
Keyword(s):  
Subject Matter ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
International Agreement ◽  
Textual Studies ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Republic

The purpose of this study is to find out the position of the Constitutional Court which later? an understanding of the politic of International agreement law adopted by the Republic of Indonesia. This can be reviewed from the legal considerations that underlying the Constitutional Court Decision. It is a legal research that examines the laws and regulation related to Constitutional Court through several stages: elaborate textual studies, completing textual studies, analyzing legal materials and determine conclusions. The study shows that International and legalized agreement that has not been ratified are placed as part of national law and are used as a reference to enrich the reasoning horizon in interpreting the constitution. Law on the ratification of the International Agreement containing norms which are attachments and an inseparable part of the law, which in its existence as a law constitutes the authority of the Constitutional Court to examine its constitutionality. In this context, the constitutional Court embraced the politic law of monism with the primate of national law and the Constitutional Court embraced the politic law of dualism when examining the constitutionality of the law concerning the ratification of the International Agreement-in terms of subject matter. Tujuan dari kajian ini adalah untuk mengetahui sikap Mahkamah Konstitusi yang nantinya akan memberikan pemahaman tentang politik hukum Perjanjian Internasional yang dianut Negara Republik Indonesia. Hal ini dapat ditinjau dari pertimbangan hukum yang mendasari amar Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Artikel ini merupakan suatu penelitian hukum yang mengkaji Peraturan Perundang-undangan dan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi yang ada dengan langkah-langkah melakukan studi tekstual, melengkapi studi tekstual serta melakukan analisis terhadap bahan hukum yang terkumpul dan menarik kesimpulan. Hasil penelitian menunjukan bahwa Perjanjian Internasional yang telah disahkan maupun yang belum disahkan ditempatkan sebagai bagian dari hukum nasional dan dijadikan rujukan guna memperkaya cakrawala penalaran dalam menafsirkan Undang-Undang dasar. Undang-Undang tentang pengesahan Perjanjian internasional memuat norma yang merupakan lampiran dan bagian yang tidak terpisahkan dari Undang-Undang bersangkutan, yang dalam keberadaannya sebagai Undang-Undang merupakan kewenangan Mahkamah Konstitusi untuk menguji konstitusionalitasnya. Dalam konteks ini Mahkamah Konstitusi  menganut  politik hukum monisme dengan primat hukum nasional dan Mahkamah Konstitusi menganut politik  hukum dualisme saat menguji konstitusionalitas Undang-Undang tentang pengesahan Perjanjian Internasional dalam hal menyangkut pokok perkaranya.

scholarly journals DISKURSUS SOSIOLOGI PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI NOMOR 46/PUU-VIII/2010

2021 ◽  
pp. 236-246
Author(s):  
Dwi Sakti Muhamad Huda ◽  
Dodi Alaska Ahmad Syaiful ◽  
Desi Wahyuni
Keyword(s):  
Legal Protection ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Reason ◽  
Kinship System ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right ◽  
Sociological Discourse ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Broad Scale

The Constitutional Court Decision Number 46 / PUU-VIII / 2010 annulled the provisions of Article 43 paragraph (1) of the Marriage Law because it contradicts the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and does not have binding legal force. The legal reason behind the rechtfinding is to emphasize that children born outside of marriage have the right to legal protection. This research was conducted with the aim of knowing the impact of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 46 / PUU-VIII / 2010 on one of the judges' judicial duties. This study uses a socio-legal approach with data collection techniques for study documents of literature materials. Based on the results of the analysis of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 46 / PUU-VIII / 2010, it does not contradict and intersect with the sociological discourse in accordance with the argumentum a contrario method. Then have coherence between the parental or bilateral kinship system with the Constitutional Court Decision No. 46 / PUU-VIII / 2010 in its application in Indonesia. This condition demands the intellectuality of Judges who are required to think on a broad scale and consider other disciplines in their legal findings.

scholarly journals Kedudukan Surat Edaran Badan Pengawas Pemilihan Umum Republik Indonesia di Aceh

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-61
Author(s):  
Taqiyuddin Faranis ◽  
Husni Djalil ◽  
Mahdi Syabandir
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Supervisory Board ◽  
General Election ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Legal Power ◽  
Library Research ◽  
Circular Letter ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Government

Pasal 60 ayat (4) Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2006 tentang Pemerintah Aceh dinyatakan bahwa masa kerja Panitia Pengawas Pemilihan (Panwaslih) berakhir 3 (tiga) bulan setelah pelantikan kepala daerah tepilih, sementara dalam regulasi yuridis lainnya khususnya Undang-Undang Nomor 15 Tahun 2011 tentang Penyelenggara Pemilihan Umum dan Pemilihan menegaskan berakhir paling lambat 2 (dua) bulan setelah seluruh tahapan penyelenggaraan Pemilihan Umum selesai. Ketua Badan Pengawas Pemilihan Umum (Bawaslu) Republik Indonesia mengeluarkan Surat Edaran Nomor: 0240/K.Bawaslu/TU.0001/III/2017 tentang Penegasan Masa Tugas Lembaga Pengawas Pemilihan Umum Ad Hoc dalam Rangka Pemilihan Gubernur dan Wakil, Bupati dan Wakil Bupati dan/atau Walikota dan Wakil Walikota Tahun 2017. Surat Edaran tersebut disimpulkan bahwa masa kerja Panwaslih di Aceh berakhir pada bulan Mei bagi daerah yang terdapat penyelesaian sengketa di Mahkamah Konstitusi dan bulan Juni bagi daerah yang vakum sengketa. Hal ini mengakibatkan ketidakpastian hukum bagi penyelenggara Pemilihan Kepala Daerah dan menimbulkan kegaduhan dalam internal Panwaslih di Aceh. Penelitian ini mengkaji bagaimanakah kedudukan dan  kekuatan hukum Surat Edaran Bawaslu, mengkaji kepastian hukum masa kerja Panwaslih di Aceh atas keputusan Bawaslu Republik Indonesia yang telah mengeluarkan Surat Edaran yang dijadikan rujukan Pemerintah Aceh untuk merevisi Peraturan Gubernur sebelumnya mengenai masa kerja Panwaslih di Aceh. Metode Penelitian yang digunakan adalah penelitian normatif atau penelitian hukum kepustakaan.The article 60 paragraph (4) of the Act Number 11, 2006 concerning the Government of Aceh stated that the working period of the Election Committee ends 3 (three) months after the inauguration of the elected regional head, while in other juridical regulations especially the Act Number 15, 2011 concerning the General Election Organizer and the Election stipulates to expire no later than 2 (two) months after all stages of the election are completed. Chairman of the Election Supervisory has issued the Circular Letter Number: 0240/K.Bawaslu/TU.0001/III/2017 on the Affirmation of Ad Hoc Election Observer Period of Governor and Deputy Regent, Deputy Regent and Deputy Regent, and or Mayor and Deputy Mayor 2017. Based on the Circular Letter, it states that the working period of the Committee in Aceh ends in May for the area where there is a dispute resolution at the Constitutional Court and in June for the vacuum of the dispute. This has resulted in legal uncertainty for the election organizers and caused frenzy within the internal the Election Advisory in Aceh. This research aims to explore the position and legal power of the Election Supervisory Board Circular Letter, to review the legal certainty of the working period of the Election Committee in Aceh on the decision of General Election Supervisory Board of the Republic Indonesia which has issued a Circular Letter as the reference of the Government of Aceh to revise the previous Governor Regulation concerning the working period of the committee in Aceh. This is doctrinal legal research or library research.

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