The Politics of Intolerant Laws against Adherents of Indigenous Beliefs or Aliran Kepercayaan in Indonesia

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-19
Author(s):  
Victor Imanuel W. Nalle

Abstract Earlier studies have examined the discriminatory effects of laws and policies against the adherents of indigenous beliefs—Aliran Kepercayaan—in Indonesia. However, those studies do not show how the politics of law were developed through the prior sociopolitical processes in Indonesia’s legislative history. This study analyzes how and why the government initiated and later put an end to discrimination against adherents of Aliran Kepercayaan—at least in the realm of population administration. Under the New Order era, political battles gave birth to the politics of law discriminating against the Aliran Kepercayaan adherents. Weakening political resistance in the Reformasi era as well as judicial review before the Constitutional Court forced the government to partially relax its discriminatory laws and policies. Nonetheless, progressive initiatives from secular nationalist parties have yet to be taken in order to further ensure equality for all minority—religious—groups within Indonesian society before the law.

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammad Helmi Fahrozi ◽  
Antonius Julio Parlindungan

AbstrakIde pembentukan Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK) merupakan salah satu perkembangan pemikiran hukum dan kenegaraan modern yang muncul di abad ke-20. Pasca Orde Baru, susunan kelembagaan negara mengalami perubahan salah satunya adalah pembentukan MK melalui amandemen Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 (UUD 1945) yang ketiga. Berdirinya MK sebagai special tribunal secara terpisah dari Mahkamah Agung, yang pada dasarnya menguji keserasian norma hukum yang lebih rendah dengan norma hukum yang lebih tinggi. Selain menguji keserasian norma hukum, pengujian undang-undang juga dapat dilakukan apabila hak konstitusional dari masyarakat tidak terpenuhi dengan berlakunya suatu undang-undang. Apabila terpenuhi, putusan Majelis Hakim Konstitusi dapat membatalkan atau menghapus isi dari produk badan legislasi atau pemerintah. Dengan proses yang panjang dalam pengujian undang-undang, dibutuhkan suatu putusan provisi sebagai tindakan hukum sementara guna mencegah atau menghentikan terlebih dahulu pemberlakuan suatu undang-undang yang sedang diuji guna menghindari akibat hukum yang menyeluruh. Kedudukan permohonan putusan provisi dalam pengujian undang-undang tidak diatur secara jelas dalam peraturan perundang-undangan namun dalam praktik beracara di MK pada beberapa kasus, hasil putusan berupa putusan provisi. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode yuridis normatif dengan melakukan beberapa pendekatan masalah yang terdapat aspek permohonan provisi dalam melakukan pengujian materi undang-undang.Kata Kunci: Pengujian, Undang-Undang, Mahkamah Konstitusi, Putusan ProvisiAbstractThe idea of establishing a Constitutional Court (MK) is one of the developments in modern legal and state thinking that emerged in the 20th century. After the New Order, the institutional structure of the state underwent changes, one of which was the formation of the Constitutional Court through the third amendment to the 1945 Constitution (UUD 1945). The establishment of the Constitutional Court as a special tribunal separate from the Supreme Court, which basically tests the compatibility of lower legal norms with higher legal norms. In addition to testing the conformity of legal norms, judicial review can also be carried out if the constitutional rights of the community are not fulfilled by the enactment of a law. If fulfilled, the decision of the Panel of Constitutional Justices can cancel or delete the contents of the products of the legislative body or the government. With a long process in judicial review, a provisional decision is needed as a temporary legal action to prevent or stop the enactment of a law being tested in order to avoid comprehensive legal consequences. The position of the petition for a provisional decision in judicial review is not clearly regulated in the statutory regulations, but in the practice of proceeding at the Constitutional Court in some cases, the result of the decision is in the form of a provisional decision. This study uses a normative juridical method by taking several approaches to the problem that contains aspects of the application for provisions in conducting judicial review of the material. Keywords: Testing, Law, Constitutional Court, Provisional DecisionsAbstractThe idea of establishing a Constitutional Court (MK) is one of the developments in modern legal and state thinking that emerged in the 20th century. After the New Order, the institutional structure of the state underwent changes, one of which was the formation of the Constitutional Court through the third amendment to the 1945 Constitution (UUD 1945). The establishment of the Constitutional Court as a special tribunal separate from the Supreme Court, which basically tests the compatibility of lower legal norms with higher legal norms. In addition to testing the conformity of legal norms, judicial review can also be carried out if the constitutional rights of the community are not fulfilled by the enactment of a law. If fulfilled, the decision of the Panel of Constitutional Justices can cancel or delete the contents of the products of the legislative body or the government. With a long process in judicial review, a provisional decision is needed as a temporary legal action to prevent or stop the enactment of a law being tested in order to avoid comprehensive legal consequences. The position of the petition for a provisional decision in judicial review is not clearly regulated in the statutory regulations, but in the practice of proceeding at the Constitutional Court in some cases, the result of the decision is in the form of a provisional decision. This study uses a normative juridical method by taking several approaches to the problem that contains aspects of the application for provisions in conducting judicial review of the material.Keywords: Testing, Law, Constitutional Court, Provisional Decisions


2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 080
Author(s):  
Zaka Firma Aditya

Tulisan ini hendak membahas mengenai konsistensi putusan-putusan mahkamah konstitusi dalam pengujian undang-undang berdasarkan asas preseden. MK beberapa kali dipandang tidak konsisten karena kerap mengeluarkan putusan yang bersifat overrulling. Namun, sebenarnya tidak sedikit juga putusan MK yang konsisten mengikuti preseden. Meskipun penggunaan asas preseden hanya dikenal di negara yang menganut tradisi common law, MK ternyata juga menerapkannya. Putusan MK tentang pengujian UU Pencegahan Penodaan Agama adalah salah satu bentuk dianutnya asas preseden di MK. Putusan ini secara konsisten menyatakan bahwa UU Pencegahan Penodaan Agama tetap konstitusional karena akan terjadi kekosongan hukum apabila UU Pencegahan Penodaan Agama diputus inkonstitusional. Dalam perkara tersebut, MK mempertahankan ratio decidendinya terhadap konstitusionalnya UU Pencegahan Penodaan Agama karena meskipun MK sadar bahwa UU a quo banyak mengandung kelemahan. Konsistensi standing MK terhadap UU Pencegahan Penodaan Agama ini merupakan salah satu bentuk dari dipraktekannya doktrin preseden.This paper will discuss the consistency of the constitutional court decision in the judicial review cases based on the principle of precedent. MK several times deemed inconsistent because often issued a ruling that is overruling. However, there were actually a lot of MK decisions that consistently followed the precedent. Although the use of the precedent principle is only known in common law tradition, the Constitutional Court apparently also applies it. The Constitutional Court’s decision regarding the Blasphemy Prevention Act was one form of the principle of precedent in the Constitutional Court. This decision consistently states that the Blasphemy Prevention Act remains constitutional because a legal vacuum will occur if the Blasphemy Prevention Law was decided to be unconstitutional. In this case, the Court retained its ratio decidendi to the constitutionality of the Blasphemy Prevention Law, even though the Court was aware that the Law contained many weaknesses. The consistency of the Constitutional Court on the judicial review of the Blasphemy Prevention Act is one form of the practice of precedent doctrine.


2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 452-474
Author(s):  
Priyo Handoko

The study aims to provide a constitutional analysis of judicial review (PK) in civil cases for more than once. The research-based is the decision of the Constitutional Court No. 108 / PUU-XIV / 2016 and No. 34 / PUU-XI / 2013 in which the two judgments provide a different classification between criminal and civil cases. The method used in this research is a normative juridical with a conceptual, legislation, and case approach. The results of the study assert that: first, the opportunity for judicial review (PK) more than once in a criminal case is an effort to uphold justice substantively by the Constitutional Court. Whereas the restriction of judicial review (PK) only once in civil cases is intended to guarantee legal certainty. Secondly, there is rational inconsistency in the arguments of the Constitutional Court which is indicated in Decision No. 108 / PUU-XIV / 2016 and No. 34 / PUU-XI / 2013. Both criminal and civil cases must seek to establish and maintain substantial justice, especially since there is a due process of law principle that requires that everyone can get the same opportunity before the law.


PROPAGANDA ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-22
Author(s):  
M. Masad Masrur

The discussion room for the Work Creation Bill is officially located at the DPR RI Building. The discussion, which involved various interest groups, was deemed insufficient to accommodate the “rejecting” aspirations expressed by various community groups. Several community groups who are members of various civil society movements, held demonstrations outside the DPR RI Building as a venue for discussion of the Job Creation Bill. Demonstrations that also took place in these areas have caused damage to public facilities. According to Habermas's opinion, this condition is the result of structural domination, where the ruling group directs various forms of policy with instrumental communication that will not create understanding. In agreement with Gramsci, in this case, there is a political hegemony between one group against another. The government, which has an interest in immediately completing the deliberation of the Job Creation Bill, through the power of political domination, seeks to exercise hegemony against the civil society movement, causing violent conflict. Conflict resolution in the discussion of the Work Creation Bill is structurally carried out by using the state law approach in accordance with the prevailing laws and regulations. In accordance with the mandate of the constitution, all matters relating to regulations, a judicial review can be carried out at the Constitutional Court.


2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 474
Author(s):  
Elisabet . ◽  
Cut Memi

One of the authorities of the Constitutional Court governed by the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945 was the examining of laws against the contitution or judicial review. Inside the regulations which governing the implementation of this authority, the Constitutional Court only acts as a negative legislator, namely canceling or reinforcing a norm tested by the Petitioner. But in practice, the Constitutional Court has changed its role to become a positive legislator, who is forming a new legal norm, which is the authority of legislators. The Constitutional Court should not be able to form a new legal norm because there is no legal basis which regulate that. But Constitutional Court can form a new legal norm in some urgent circumstances, relating to Human Rights, and preventing legal vacuum. In addition, the establishment of laws by lawmakers that require a long process and time. This is compelling Constitutional Court to make substitute norm before the law was established by the legislators. In the Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 46/PUU-XVI/2016, the Court actually wants to establish a new legal norm, but because the articles in the petitioned have criminal sanctions, and if the Constitutional Court approves the petition, the Constitutional Court has formulated a new criminal act that can only be formed by the lawmaker. Whereas in the Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 21/PUU-XII/2014, the Constitutional Court established a new norm because in the article a quo there were no criminal sanctions.


2021 ◽  
pp. 27-38
Author(s):  
Steven Gow Calabresi

This chapter examines the two models of judicial review that exist in the civil law countries: the Concentrated Model and the Hybrid Model. The Concentrated Model of judicial review is built around the idea that what judges do when they enforce constitutions and Bills of Rights is inherently political and nonjudicial. For this reason, a separate Constitutional Court is created outside the ordinary judicial system, and is the only entity with the power of judicial review. The power of judicial review of Constitutional Courts is conceived as being a power to make the law and not simply to interpret it. Hence, a Constitutional Court in a civil law country is, essentially, a fourth branch of the government. Meanwhile, many countries, especially in Latin America, have developed distinct Hybrid Models of judicial review. The country of Brazil can be considered as the archetypal Hybrid Model. Brazil’s Hybrid Model of judicial review consists of a very complex system full of institutional mechanisms that are meant to enforce the Constitution. The Brazilian system combines features from both the Concentrated and the Diffuse Models hence the term Hybrid Model.


2018 ◽  
Vol 54 ◽  
pp. 02006
Author(s):  
Riris Ardhanariswari ◽  
Muhammad Fauzan ◽  
Ahmad Komari

The Constitutional Court is one of the perpetrators of judicial power, in addition to the Supreme Court as referred to in Article 24 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. The Constitutional Court is also bound to the general principle of an independent judicial power, free from the influence of other institutions in enforcing law and justice. The Constitutional Court is the first and last level judicial body, or it can be said that it is the only judicial body whose decisions are final and binding. The existence of the Constitutional Court is at the same time to maintain the implementation of a stable state government and is also a correction to the experience of constitutional life in the past caused by multiple interpretations of the constitution. Judicial review towards the constitution is one of the authorities of the Constitutional Court that attracted attention. This shows that there has also been a shift in the doctrine of the parliamentary supremacy towards the doctrine of the supremacy of the constitution. The law was previously inviolable, but now the existence of a law is questionable in its alignment with the Constitution. The authority to examine the Law towards the Constitution is the authority of the Constitutional Court as the guardian of the constitution. This authority is carried out to safeguard the provisions of the Act so that it does not conflict with the constitution and / or impair the constitutional rights of citizens. This shows that the judicial review towards the Constitution carried out by the Constitutional Court is basically also to provide protection for human rights.


2019 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 26-31
Author(s):  
Md. Raisul Islam Sourav

This article contains a doctrinal analysis of the law and policy encouragement towards a low carbon energy transition in the Scotland. To do this, the present article is primarily focused on electricity sector of the Scotland and its commitment towards a low carbon transition in this sector in coming years. This article analyzes the existing significant laws and policies in Scotland that encourage towards a low carbon transition. However, it also evaluates international obligation upon the Scotland and the UK, as well, towards this transition. Subsequently, it assesses the UK’s legal framework in this regard. However, Scotland is firmly committed to achieve its targets towards a low carbon transition in the power sector although it needs more incentive and tight observation of the government to smoothen the process.


2015 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 120-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lubomír Kopeček ◽  
Jan Petrov

The Czech Constitutional Court has gained a strong position within the political system. This article examines the judicial review of legislation from the point of view of the relation between the court and the parliament. The authors analyze trends in the use of petitions proposing the annulment of statutes, who makes use of the petitions, how successful the petitioners are, and what issues the petitions concern. The article pairs a quantitative view with a qualitative analysis of key selected decisions by the court, especially in the sphere of mega-politics. The authors test whether judicial review of legislation serves as a tool for parliamentary opposition. The results show the decisive effects of a legislative majority in the lower house of the parliament. If the government lacks a majority, the use of judicial review of legislation as an oppositional tool fades. Also important is the weakness of the upper house, which makes senators more likely to resort to using judicial review of legislation. An especially crucial factor is the presence of independent and semi-independent senators who, without broader political backing, see judicial review of legislation as a welcome tool. The most frequent topics of the petitions were transitional justice, social policy, and the legislative process.


1990 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-128
Author(s):  
Joaquin Martin Canivell

Abstract The promulgation of the new Italian Law for the protection of competition and the market urges a comparison with the corresponding Spanish legislation, taking also account of its evolution.In 1963 a first competition law was introduced in Spain as a consequence of a request by the United States, whose intention was to increase its business activities in Spain. Another justification of the interest of Spain for introducing this law was the idea that it could be a step forward the European Common Market.This law was not very effective and, furthermore, its life has not been very easy, though it included the main legal definitions of the EEC Treaty, in particular provisions for cartels and for abuse of a dominant position. In addition, the Spanish law introduced a definition for «dominant position».In order to implement the law, two organisms have been created: the «Service for the Defence of Competition” and the Tribunal having the same name.Both the law and the administrative system organized on its basis became almost useless, because for the first two decades very few decisions had been taken and the only proposal by the Tribunal to the Government for inflicting a sanction was not approved. By consequence, the Tribunal made no other attempts to propose measures to the Government.The revival came after the introduction in Spain of the Constitution, which was promulgated in 1978 and which established, in art. 38, a free-enterprise system in the framework of a market economy to be protected by the public authorities.A judgement by July 1st, 1986, of the Constitutional Court, confirmed that competition is a component of the market economy which protects rather than restrict the freedom of enterprise.By the end of 1985 the Service for the Defence of Competition started a new life. The same happened with the activities of the Tribunal. The number of examinations increased and after 1988 the Tribunal tried again to inflict sanctions, and it was successful.A new law for the protection of the competition was approved by the Parliament on July 17th, 1989 and is in force in Spain since that time. It is founded on the EEC Treaty and it also benefits from the experience with the previous law.Cartels and abuse of dominant position are the main objects of the law which introduced, in addition, the case of «unfair competition».The Tribunal can injunct to the undertakings to suspend their action and to eliminate its consequences. Another innovation of the law was the attribution to the Tribunal of the power to inflict fees up to 150 million pesetas (about 1,7 billion Italian lire), to be increased until the 10 per cent of the turnover.As it was with the first law, two organs are committed to the safeguard of competition: the Service for the Defence of Competition and the Tribunal. The Service has the assignment to start preliminary investigations, to supervise the enforcement of the judgements of the Tribunal, to keep the register with the annotations of authorizations, prohibitions and concentrations and to make studies on the economic system.The Tribunal is an organ of the Ministry for Economy and Finances, but is functionally independent. Its eight members (economists and lawyers) and the president are appointed by the Government for six years and can be confirmed. The president is Secretary of State and the members have the rank of general directors. Decisions are taken by the Tribunal with a majority of six votes (including that of the president or of the vicepresident).Apart from its judiciary powers, the Tribunal can express opinions and give advices upon request by the Parliament, by the Government or by Ministers, as well as by local governments, by unions and by organizations of producers and consumers.The Tribunal has also the power to authorize agreements and other actions prohibited by the competition legislation, on the basis of these reasons: 1) productive improvements or better wholesalers’ organization, technical or technological progress; 2) partecipation by the consumers to the resulting benefits.No limitations to competition can be introduced in order to obtain such results. Competition cannot be eliminated from the market or from a relevant part of it.Such authorizations are not retroactive and can be renewed or revoked.On the subject of economic concentrations, the Tribunal can take action only on request by the Minister for Economy and Finances. The notification by undertakings is voluntary. The advice provided by the Tribunal to the Minister is not binding, since the power to decide on concentrations is entirely under the responsibility of the government.The rules of procedure adopted by the Tribunal and the Service are flexible and effective in order to guarantee the rights of the citizens. The judgements of the Tribunal can be taken to the Civil Courts. Also damage compensation is decided by the Civil Courts.At the moment, there are not yet cases on the basis of the new law and those pending follow the rules of the old law.Some authorizations, instead, have been decided already by the Tribunal whose advice has been requested twice on cases of concentration.New regulations for authorizations by category will be issued in the next future. Other rules for cases of individual authorization will also be provided.The number of cases submitted to the Tribunal increases and the number (as well as the amount) of fees goes up as the public opinion realizes how beneficial can be competition for the general welfare.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document