scholarly journals Judicial Reasoning and Review in the Indonesian Supreme Court

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (01) ◽  
pp. 67-97
Author(s):  
Simon BUTT

AbstractThis article describes and critiques the judicial reasoning of Indonesia’s Supreme Court, through the lens of the Court’s reviews of subnational laws during 2011–17. The resulting picture is a negative one. Most of the Court’s decisions were critically flawed, with either very little or no reasoning, and inconsistencies with past decisions. Worse, the Court appears keen to avoid hearing important cases that raise difficult political issues, even though the law governing those issues is clear and easy to apply. These inadequacies are perpetuated by genuine uncertainty about the precise jurisdiction of the Court in judicial review cases. However, the Court has not sought to resolve this uncertainty. Indeed, these decisions appear to reflect a court paying little regard to judicial transparency and accountability, and unwilling or unable to act as an effective check on government power.

Author(s):  
Ariel L Bendor

Abstract The article argues that over the years a series of gradual developments has taken place in the judicial review policies of Israel’s Supreme Court, whereby the Court expanded its ad hoc discretion in determining the constitutional limits that apply to primary legislation. Israeli constitutionalism has become judiciary-centered. The article suggests that judicial discretion that the Israeli Supreme Court tends to exercise in constitutional matters is of two types: substantive judicial discretion, which concerns the interpretation or application of the law; and adjudicative discretion, which includes both the discretion to deny in limine petitions in which the Court does not deem it necessary to grant relief according to considerations such as standing or delay; and the Court’s discretion in the manner of the hearing. The article suggests three illuminations of Israeli judiciary-centered constitutionalism: expenditure of the justices’ awareness of their discretion; the decline of the rules structuring judicial discretion; and a re-rise of the justices’ recognition of legitimacy of adjudicative discretion due to the expansion of substantive judicial discretion.


2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 2102-2117
Author(s):  
Alda Rifada Rizqi

Democracy with integrity will be realized if carried out in accordance with the will of the people as holders of sovereignty, the KPU (Komisi Pemilihan Umum) as the election organizer has the authority to make regulations that support a better democracy. KPU (Komisi Pemilihan Umum) Regulation No. 20 of 2018 as evidence that the KPU is committed to participating in preventing corrupt behavior. It was considered to have been considered as an effort to protect the interests of the people, but the regulation was submitted to a judicial review at the Supreme Court. Then, based on legal-formal considerations and based on the legal positivism of the Supreme Court, the request for the test is granted. The decision distanced itself from progressive legal values that justified the denial of what was regulated in legislation in order to put forward the values of public justice, because basically the law was made to fulfill human interests, accommodating the will of the people for the sake of order.


2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 123-148
Author(s):  
Endri Ismail

Penelitian ini berupaya memaparkan legalitas Qanun Aceh Nomor 6 Tahun 2014 tentang Hukum Jinayat (Qanun Jinayah) dalam konstruksi hukum tata negara Indonesia. Untuk menganalisis hal tersebut, penelitian ini akan meninjau legalitas Qanun Jinayah dari dua sudut pandang, yaitu formalitas pembentukan peraturan perundang-undangan dan konsep negara kesatuan. Qanun Jinayah menuai banyak perdebatan disebabkan kedudukannya sebagai peraturan daerah (perda) namun bermateri muatan pidana Islam (jinayah) yang sama sekali belum diatur dalam peraturan perundang-undangan di level nasional. Tahun 2015, Qanun Jinayah dilakukan uji materiil ke Mahkamah Agung oleh Perkumpulan Masyarakat Pembaharuan Peradilan Pidana (ICJR) namun permohonan uji materiil ini dinyatakan tidak dapat diterima dengan alasan prematur (belum waktunya). Analisis yuridis dari perspektif hukum ketatanegaraan ini penting dilakukan mengingat legalitas sebuah peraturan perundang-undangan menentukan validitas dan kekuatan berlakunya. Yuridical Analysis of the Legality of Qanun Aceh Number 6 Year 2014 on Jinayat Law This research attempts to describe the legality of Qanun Aceh Number 6 Year 2014 on Jinayat Law (Qanun Jinayah) in the construction of Indonesian constitutional law. To analyze it, this study will examine the legality of Qanun Jinayah from two perspectives, those are the formality of the formulation of legislation and the concept of a unitary state. Qanun Jinayah gets  a lot of debate because of its position as a Regional Regulation (Peraturan Daerah), but the material of Islamic criminal content (Jinayah) which has not been regulated in national legislation. In 2015, Qanun Jinayat is subjected to a judicial review to the Supreme Court by the Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (ICJR), but this petition is declared unacceptable on a premature reason (unspecified). Judicial analysis from the perspective of constitutional law is important to do due to the legality of a legislation determines the validity and strenght of the law.


2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 37
Author(s):  
Asep Syarifuddin Hidayat

Abstract.Article 13 paragraph 1 of Act Number 48 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power states that all court hearings are open to the public, unless the Act says otherwise. Therefore, a judicial review trial must be open to the public. If the trial process of the judicial review is carried out in a closed manner, it can be considered a legal defect, because it is contrary to Article 13 paragraph (3) of the Law. The Law of the Supreme Court is not regulated that the judicial review is closed, because in the judicial review there is a need for openness or principle of audiences of parties or litigants must be given the opportunity to provide information and express their opinions, including the defendant as the maker of Legislation invitation under the law, so that the impact of the decision will need to be involved.Keywords: Judicial Review, Audi Alteram Et Partem Principle, Supreme Court, Constitutional Court Abstrak.Pasal 13 ayat 1 Undang-Undang Nomor 48 Tahun 2009 tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman menyebutkan semua sidang pemeriksaan pengadilan terbuka untuk umum, kecuali Undang-Undang berkata lain. Oleh karena itu,  judicial review persidangan harus dilakukan terbuka untuk umum. Apabila proses persidangan judicial review ini dilakukan secara tertutup, maka dapat dinilai cacat hukum karena bertentangan dengan Pasal 13 ayat (3) Undang-Undang tersebut. Undang-Undang Mahkamah Agung pun tidak diatur bahwa persidangan judicial review bersifat tertutup, karena dalam judicial review perlu adanya keterbukaan atau asas audi alteram et partem atau pihak-pihak yang berperkara harus diberi kesempatan untuk memberikan keterangan dan menyampaikan pendapatnya termasuk pihak termohon sebagai  pembuat Peraturan Perundang-Undangan di bawah Undang-Undang sehingga akan terkena dampak putusan perlu dilibatkan.Kata Kunci: Judicial Review, Asas Audi Alteram Et Partem, Mahkamah Agung, Mahkamah Konstitusi.


2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 169-216
Author(s):  
Brian A. Langille

Judicial review of the decisions of labour relations boards has been a nagging problem for the Supreme Court of Canada for decades. The decision of the Court in Le Syndicat des Employés de Production du Québec et de L’Acadie v. Canada Labour Relations Board et al. provides an opportunity for and indeed provokes review of the work of the Court in dealing with this recurring problem. This essay begins by placing in perspective the concrete issue posed in the L’Acadie decision. But the particular facts of that case are used only as a vehicle to explore the nature of the problem of judicial review of labour decisionmakers and the history of the Court's handling of it. A fundamental thesis of this essay is that the Court's work can be best understood as comprising two distinct periods, the early years (pre-1979) and the new era (1979-1984?). This essay articulates the view that during the early years the Court developed a law of judicial review which was wholly inadequate both in functional and doctrinal terms. In the new era the Court simplified and reformed the law of judicial review of labour boards and labour arbitrators. It is only from the perspective of the Court's previous handling of the issue that the decision in L’Acadie can be truly understood. When so viewed the decision is perfectly inadequate. The case creates a new distinction based upon the old confusion of “jurisdiction”. This essay then develops the view that no theory of judicial review which revolves around the notion of “jurisdiction” can ever satisfactorily deal with the issues presented. In this respect the Court's own cases from the “new era” represent a much more sensible, if still a second best approach. Finally, suggestions for a legislative solution to the problem posed by L’Acadie are briefly explored.


2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
pp. 37-49
Author(s):  
Adnan Qadir

The law-making process as a whole vested in the legislative power in the presidential form of government, however in the parliamentary form of government, the executive power participates in the law-making through introducing bills along with legislative initiatives. The Constitution in Iraq grants an original authority to legislate federal laws to the Council of Representatives, however the executive power namely the President and the Council of Ministries participates in the process through introducing government bills to the Council of Representatives. Although the Constitution clearly identifies two methods through which bills shall be presented to the Council of Representatives, there have been disagreements over the constitutionality of laws legislated based legislative initiatives not government bills. The Federal Supreme Court has decided differently on different occasions by depriving the legislative power of its right to initiate in some cases or by putting restrictions in some other cases. This research analyzes the line drawn between the Council of Representatives and the executive power in the process of law-making at its first stage and then examines the Federal Supreme Court’s understanding in the light of the text of the Constitution.


2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (39) ◽  
Author(s):  
José Patriarca Brandão Souza ◽  
Rômulo Guilherme Leitão

  RESUMOO presente artigo trata das questões políticas no âmbito do Supremo Tribunal Federal a partir de uma perspectiva histórica da matéria. Em que pese a tripartição das funções do Estado, algumas razões históricas levaram ao modelo atual de jurisdição constitucional no Brasil, sendo possível identificar que, desde a Primeira República (1889-1930), o Poder Judiciário é provocado a se manifestar acerca dos limites de sua atuação em temas dessa natureza. Com a promulgação da Constituição de 1988, sob o prisma de uma nova democracia, o quadro institucional brasileiro foi substancialmente alterado a partir do novo paradigma constitucional, ao qual foi atribuído um papel estratégico ao Poder Judiciário conferindo-lhe autonomia funcional com o intuito de impedir que o Direito continuasse a ser instrumentalizado. Dois momentos serão analisados neste trabalho: i) os habeas corpus 300 (1892), 1063 (1898), 1073 (1898) e a obra clássica O Direito do Amazonas ao Acre Setentrional (1910); e ii) a atuação do Supremo Tribunal Federal na Ação Direta de Inconstitucionalidade (ADI) 5526 (2016) e nas Ações Cautelares números 4039 (2015), 4070 (4010) e 4327 (2017), que determinaram o afastamento e até prisões de parlamentares federais entre 2015 e 2017. O trabalho busca discutir se o Supremo Tribunal Federal mantém em aberto uma questão constitucional histórica – a delimitação da sua atuação no tema denominado “questões políticas” – ou optou por justificar o avanço nas atribuições privativas do Congresso Nacional a partir de uma perspectiva moralista. PALAVRAS-CHAVEPoder Judiciário. Questões políticas. Ativismo judicial. Democracia. Moralismo. ABSTRACTThis article examine the "Political question doctrine" within the scope of the Supremo Tribunal Federal (Federal Supreme Court) from a historical view of the matter. Despite the tripartite functions of the State, some historical reasons have led to the current model of constitutional jurisdiction in Brazil, and it is possible to identify that, since the First Republic (1889-1930), the Judiciary has been led to express its limits on its nature. With the promulgation of the 1988 Constitution, under the prism of a new democracy, the Brazilian institutional framework was substantially altered from the new constitutional paradigm, which was assigned a strategic role to the Judiciary, granting it functional autonomy in order to prevent that the law continued to be instrumentalized. Two moments will be analyzed in this work: i) habeas corpus 300 (1892), 1063 (1898), 1073 (1898) and the classic work The Law of the Amazon to the Northern Acre (1910); and (ii) the actions of the Federal Supreme Court in the Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI) 5526 (2016) and in the Precautionary Actions number 4039 (2015), 4070 (4010) and 4327 (2017), which determined the removal and even arrests of members of parliament federal courts between 2015 and 2017. The paper seeks to discuss whether the Federal Supreme Court holds open a historical constitutional issue - delimiting its action on the theme called "political issues" - or has chosen to justify the advance in the exclusive attributions of the National Congress from from a moralistic perspective. KEYWORDSJudiciary Branch. Political issues. Judicial activism. Democracy. Moralism.


2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Abdul Syukur Yakub ◽  
Auliya Khasanofa

ABSTRAK Kewenangan Mahkamah Agung terhadap uji materi Peraturan Komisi Pemilihan Umum nomor 20 tahun 2018 yang tertuang dalam putusan nomor 48 P/HUM/2018 telah memberi ruang bagi mantan koruptor (pelaku kejahatan luar biasa) untuk menjadi calon anggota legislatif. Penelitian menggunakan jenis penelitian hukum normatif empiris. Penelitian normatif membahas kaidah, doktrin dan asas hukum yang secara luas terdapat dalam ilmu hukum. Penelitian empiris dilakukan penulis sebagai dukungan terhadap pendekatan undang-undang yang umumnya bersifat normatif. Sehingga penelitian tidak menampilkan hukum dalam bentuk yang statis dan kontekstual, melainkan menyajikan fakta sebenarnya dalam penerapan hukum yang faktual. Data primer diperoleh langsung oleh penulis dari tempat yang menjadi objek penelitian. Sedangkan data sekunder diperoleh penulis dari kajian kepustakaan, bahan hukum primer, sekunder dan tersier. Analisis data bersifat deskriptif dengan menerapkan metode kualitatif. Hasil penelitian menunjukan bahwa: Pertama, hakim harus keluar dari kekakuan hukum yang cenderung legisme, serta penafsiran gramatikal tanpa memahami rasa keadilan masyarakat luas. Kedua, harus dilakukan perubahan norma dalam undang-undang nomor 24 tahun 2003 tentang Mahkamah Konstitusi, terutama pasal 55 dan perubahan terhadap undang-undang pemilu yang mengatur pembatasan bagi mantan narapidana kejahatan luar biasa seperti: korupsi, narkotika, kekerasan terhadap anak. Kata Kunci: Kewenangan, Mahkamah Agung, Uji Materi Calon LegislatifABSTRACT The authority of the Supreme Court on the judicial review of the Election Commission Regulation number 20 of 2018 as stipulated in decision number 48 P / HUM / 2018 has given space for former corruptors (extraordinary criminals) to become candidates for legislative members. This research uses empirical normative legal research. Normative research discusses the rules, doctrines and principles of law that are widely contained in the science of law. The author's empirical research as support for the law approach is generally normative in nature. So that research does not display the law in a static and contextual form, but presents the actual facts in the application of factual law. Primary data obtained directly by the writer from the place that is the object of research. Whereas the secondary data were obtained by the writer from the literature study, primary, secondary and tertiary legal materials. Data analysis is descriptive by applying qualitative methods. The results showed that: First, judges must get out of the rigidity of the law that tends to legism, and grammatical interpretation without understanding the sense of justice of the wider community. Second, changes must be made to norms in law number 24 of 2003 concerning the Constitutional Court, especially article 55 and changes to the electoral law which regulates restrictions on ex-convicts of extraordinary crimes such as: corruption, narcotics, violence against children. Keywords: Authority, Supreme Court, Judicial Review of Legislative Candidates.


1948 ◽  
Vol 42 (6) ◽  
pp. 1103-1126 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. A. C. Grant

The 1910 amendments to the Colombian constitution provided:Art. 40. In every case of incompatibility between the Constitution and the law the constitutional provisions shall be applied by preference.Art. 41. To the Supreme Court of Justice is confided the guardianship of the integrity of the Constitution. Consequently, in addition to the powers conferred upon it by this Constitution and the statutes, it shall have the following: To decide definitively as to the enforceability of bills that have been vetoed as unconstitutional by the Government, or as to all laws and decrees accused before it by any citizen as unconstitutional, first hearing the Attorney-General of the Nation.The first function, “to decide definitively as to the enforceability of bills that have been vetoed as unconstitutional,” was merely a restatement of the plan copied from Ecuador in 1886 and still in use, although it has proved a major disappointment.


2014 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 149
Author(s):  
M Nur Sholikin

Regulations under Laws which is the output of political and bureaucratic processes need to be supervised with a review mechanism by judicial power. Supreme Court as a judicial body have an authority to conduct the judicial review. The issue of the effectiveness procedures for judiical review regulation under law in the Supreme Court became the main topic of this research. This research is conducted through normative research methode, descriptive by studied legislation and other relevant library materials. The study concluded that the regulation and implementation for the judicial review application in the Supreme Court do not support the principles of transparency and accountability. Therefore, it is necessary to make revisions to the Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 Year 2011 on the Rights of the Judicial Review. Keywords: Procedures, Testing Laws and Regulations, the Supreme Court


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document