THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL COURT DECISION IN THE JUDICIAL REVIEW OF LAW NUMBER 22 YEAR 2001 CONCERNING OIL AND GAS FOLLOWED BY PRESIDENTIAL REGULATION.

MuhammadYaasiin Raya;  ; Abdul Razak; Marwati Riza;  ;

doi:10.21474/ijar01/6344

Judicial Consistency dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi tentang Pengujian Undang-Undang Penodaan Agama

Jurnal Konstitusi ◽

10.31078/jk1714 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 17 (1) ◽

pp. 080

Author(s):

Zaka Firma Aditya

Keyword(s):

Judicial Review ◽

Common Law ◽

Court Decision ◽

Constitutional Court ◽

Prevention Act ◽

Ratio Decidendi ◽

The Law ◽

Prevention Law

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.

Download Full-text

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

Jurnal Konstitusi ◽

10.31078/jk1527 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

IMPLIKASI PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI NOMOR 92/PUU-X/2012 DAN ALTERNATIF MODEL HUBUNGAN KELEMBAGAAN TERKAIT PEMBENTUKAN UNDANG-UNDANG

Mimbar Hukum - Fakultas Hukum Universitas Gadjah Mada ◽

10.22146/jmh.15906 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 27 (1) ◽

pp. 1

Author(s):

Enny Nurbaningsih

Keyword(s):

Judicial Review ◽

House Of Representatives ◽

Phase 1 ◽

Court Decision ◽

Constitutional Court ◽

Decision Authority ◽

Presidential System ◽

Relationship Model ◽

Institutional Construction

Presidential System Government as the result of 1945 Constitution Amandments has not been accomplised yet since its implementation reminds anomaly. President (executive) in presidential system has decision authority to produce acts with House of Representatives (DPR), without involving People Council (DPD) as one of parlement chambers. To restore DPD legislation role, Constitutional Court Decision No. 91/PUU-X/2012 states that DPD has equal position with DPR and President in acts establishment. It implicates that DPD should be involved since the legislation planning, but still does not have authority to make decision even for bills concerned with its authority. This Constitutional Court brings about the trilateral relationship model in legislation process without any institutional construction towards interchambers relation between DPD and DPR. It will result in Judicial Review despite the involvement of DPD in phase 1 and 2 Process, since this involvement does not bind DPR and President. Sistem pemerintahan presidensial hasil revisi UUD 1945 belum tuntas karena implementasinya masih memunculkan keganjilan, Presiden (eksekutif) dalam sistem presidensial ikut mengambil keputusan untuk menghasilkan undang-undang bersama DPR, tanpa pelibatan peran DPD sebagai salah satu kamar di parlemen. Untuk memulihkan peran legislasi DPD bidang tertentu, Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 92/PUU-X/2012 menyatakan bahwa DPD berkedudukan setara dengan DPR dan Presiden dalam proses pembentukan undang-undang. Implikasi dari putusan ini DPD dilibatkan mulai dari proses perencanaan legislasi, tetapi tetap tidak dapat mengambil keputusan sekalipun untuk RUU terkait dengan kewenangannya. Putusan MK melahirkan model hubungan trilateral proses legislasi tanpa ada konstruksi secara kelembagaan terhadap hubungan interkameral antara DPR dan DPD. Hal ini akan akan berdampak pada pengujian undang-undang, walaupun DPD telah dilibatkan dalam proses tahap 1 dan tahap 2, karena pelibatan ini tidak mengikat DPR dan Presiden.

Download Full-text

ANALISIS YURIDIS PENGATURAN IDEAL PENINJAUAN KEMBALI PERKARA PIDANA PASCA PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI NOMOR 34/PUU-XI/2013

Jurnal Hukum dan Pembangunan Ekonomi ◽

10.20961/hpe.v5i2.18258 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 5 (2) ◽

Author(s):

Agung Barok Pratama ◽

Aminah . ◽

Mohammad Jamin

Keyword(s):

Law Enforcement ◽

Rule Of Law ◽

Judicial Review ◽

Secondary Data ◽

Court Decision ◽

Constitutional Court ◽

Court Decisions ◽

Literature Study ◽

Law Enforcement Officials ◽

The Ideal

Abstract This article discusses the ideal setting reconsideration after the Constitutional Court decision No. 34/PUU-XII/2013. This research is legal (judicial) normative, namely by reviewing library materials (literature study). Therefore, the data used in this research is secondary data, which includes the primary legal materials, secondary, and tertiary. The results of this study showed that realizing an ideal regulatory application for review should be conducted, first, the MA should retract SEMA 7 2014 it is necessary to avoid confusion law enforcement officials and people seeking justice so as to interfere with the judicial system. If want to make additional rules to facilitate the course of justice, the MA should be poured in the form of PERMA. Second, by accelerating the process of PK and execution. Thirdly, provision PK in the future submission must be adapted to the Constitutional Court decision No. 34/PUU-X/2013. That way the material truth and justice will actually be realized.Keywords: Judicial Review; Justice; Rule of Law; Supreme Court Decisions.Abstrak Artikel ini meneliti tentang pengaturan ideal peninjauan kembali pasca putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 34/PUU-XII/2013.Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum (yuridis) normatif, yaitu dengan mengkaji bahan-bahan pustaka (studi kepustakaan). Karena itu, data yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah data skunder, yang mencakup bahan hukum primer, skunder, dan tersier. Hasil Penelitian ini menunjukan bahwa, demi menwujudkan suatu peraturan yang ideal permohonan peninjauan kembali maka perlu dilakukan, pertama, MA harus menarik kembali SEMA No.7 Tahun 2014 hal ini ini diperlukan agar tidak terjadi kebingungan aparat penegak hukum dan masyarakat pencari keadilan sehingga dapat mengganggu sistem peradilan. Kedua, dengan mempercepat proses PK dan eksekusinya. Ketiga, ketentuan pengajuan PK kedepanya harus disesuaikan dengan putusan MK No. 34/PUU-XI/2013. Dengan begitu keadilan dan kebenaran materiil akan benar-benar dapat diwujudkan. Kata kunci: Peninjauan Kembali, Keadilan, Kepastian Hukum, Putusan Mahkamah Agung

Download Full-text

IMPLIKASI HUKUM TIDAK DILAKSANAKANNYA PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI DALAM PERKARA PENGUJIAN UNDANG-UNDANG

Jurnal Hukum Adigama ◽

10.24912/adigama.v2i2.6906 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 2 (2) ◽

pp. 1089

Author(s):

Andre Suryadinata ◽

Toendjoeng Herning Sitaboeana

Keyword(s):

Rule Of Law ◽

Judicial Review ◽

House Of Representatives ◽

Court Decision ◽

Constitutional Court ◽

Legal Research ◽

The Rule Of Law ◽

Legal Implications ◽

Rules Of Procedure

The Constitutional Court is one of the branches of judicial power that has authority to adjudicate at the first and last level whose decision is final to test the law against the Constitution as regulated in Article 24C paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. The final nature of decision of the constitutional court is binding on the entire community since it was said in the Open Plenary Session. Therefore, decision of constitutional court that invalidates the validity of a law must be followed up by legislators in the cumulative list open to the national legislation program. But in practice there are 2 (two) decisions that have not been followed up, namely Constitutional Court Decision Number 31 / PUU-XI / 2013 and Constitutional Court Decision Number 30 / PUU-XVI / 2018. Based on this description, it will be examined regarding the legal implications of not implementing the Constitutional Court Decision in case of judicial review? The author examines the problem using the method of normative legal research with the statutory approach. From the results of this study, it was found that the non-follow-up of the two decisions had violated the principle of rule of law in concept of the rule of law, and caused the loss of the decision-making power, and was a form of neglect of principle of legal awareness. So it is necessary to make changes in stages of the Constitutional Court Law and the House of Representatives' Regulations on Rules of Procedure.

Download Full-text

PERBEDAAN TAFSIR MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI DALAM MEMUTUS PERKARA PEMILIHAN UMUM SERENTAK

Jurnal Yudisial ◽

10.29123/jy.v10i1.39 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 10 (1) ◽

pp. 1 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Suparto Suparto

Keyword(s):

Judicial Review ◽

House Of Representatives ◽

Descriptive Analysis ◽

Vice President ◽

General Election ◽

Court Decision ◽

Constitutional Court ◽

Legislative Elections ◽

General Elections ◽

Legislative Election

ABSTRAKSelama ini pemilu presiden dan pemilu legislatif dilakukan secara terpisah atau tidak serentak. Pemilu legislatif selalu dilakukan sebelum pemilu presiden dan wakil presiden. Pemilihan umum yang dilakukan secara terpisah dianggap lebih banyak dampak negatifnya serta tidak sesuai dengan UUD NRI 1945. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah deskriptif analitis dengan pendekatan peraturan perundangundangan. Rumusan masalahnya adalah bagaimanakah pertimbangan hakim konstitusi dalam memutus Putusan Nomor 14/PUU-XI/2013 sehingga terjadi perbedaan dengan putusan sebelumnya Nomor 51-52-59/PUUVI/ 2008 terkait dengan pelaksanaan pemilu serentak. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan pertimbangan hakim konstitusi dalam memutus Putusan Nomor 14/PUUXI/ 2013 tentang pengujian Undang-Undang Nomor 42 Tahun 2008 tentang Pemilihan Umum Presiden dan Wakil Presiden terjadi inkonsistensi. Putusan Nomor 14/ PUU-XI/2013 memutuskan bahwa pemilu presiden dan wakil presiden harus dilaksanakan secara bersamaan dengan pemilu anggota DPR, DPR, dan DPRD. Sedangkan dalam putusan sebelumnya yaitu Putusan Nomor 51-52-59/PUU-VI/2008 pada pengujian pasal dan undang-undang yang sama (Pasal 3 ayat (5) Undang- Undang Nomor 42 Tahun 2008), Mahkamah Konstitusi memutuskan bahwa pemilu presiden dan wakil presiden yang dilaksanakan setelah pemilu anggota DPR, DPD, dan DPRD (tidak serentak) adalah tidak bertentangan dengan UUD NRI 1945 (konstitusional). Terjadinya pertentangan putusan ini antara lain disebabkan oleh perbedaan pilihan penafsiran konstitusi.Kata kunci: inkonsistensi, mahkamah konstitusi, pemilu serentak. ABSTRACTDuring this time, the presidential and legislative elections are conducted separately or not simultaneously. The Legislative Elections are always carried out prior to the General Elections of the President and Vice President. The general election is conducted separately as considerably having more negative impacts and inconsistency with the 1945 Constitution. This analysis uses descriptive analysis method with the pertinent laws and regulations approach. The formulation of the issue is what the Constitutional Court Justices took into consideration in its Decision Number 14/PUU-XI/2013 leading to differences to that of its previous Decision Number 51- 52-59/PUU-VI/2008 concerning the implementation of simultaneous elections. The analysis results show inconsistencies in the consideration of the Constitutional Court Justices in ruling the case through the Decision Number 14/PUU-X/2013 on the judicial review of Law Number 42 of 2008 concerning the General Elections of the President and Vice President. The Constitutional Court Decision Number 14/PUU-X/2013 decided that the General Election of the President and Vice President should be implemented simultaneously with the Legislative Election for the Member of the House of Representatives, the Regional Representatives Council, and the Regional House of Representatives. As for the previous decision, the Constitutional Court Decision Number 51-52-59/PUU-VI/2008 on the judicial review of the same article and law (Article 3 (5) of Law Number 42 of 2008), the Constitutional Court decided that the elections of the President and Vice President conducted after the Legislative Election for the Member of the House of Representatives, the Regional Representatives Council, and the Regional House of Representatives (not simultaneously) is not contradictory to the 1945 Constitution. The contradiction of these decisions is partly due to the variety of interpretation on the constitution.Keywords: inconsistency, the constitutional court, simultaneous elections.

Download Full-text

IDEAS FOR STRENGTHENING SUPREME COURT JUDICIAL REVIEW AUTHORITY IN REVIEW OF REGIONAL REGULATIONS

JURNAL HUKUM DAN PERADILAN ◽

10.25216/jhp.9.3.2020.505-522 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 9 (3) ◽

pp. 505

Author(s):

Muh Risnain

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Judicial Review ◽

Court Decision ◽

Constitutional Court ◽

The Public ◽

Procedural Law ◽

Preliminary Examination ◽

Legal Implications ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Legal Procedures

AbstractThe problem of judicial review of regional regulations in the Supreme Court is a serious academic and practical issue that needs to be resolved after the issuance of the decision of the Constitutional Court Number 137 / PUU-XIII / 2015. There are two problems in this paper, first, the legal implications of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 137 / PUU-XIII / 2015 on institutional and legal procedures for judicial review of regional regulations in the Supreme Court, secondly, how is the concept of the Supreme Court judicial review carried out through renewal of procedural law Trial Judicial Review in the Supreme Court? Based on the discussion above, we can conclude two things, first, the legal implications of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 137 / PUU-XIII / 2015 on the institutional and legal procedures for judicial review of regional regulations in the Supreme Court are the stronger and increasing authority of judicial review in Supreme Court. This decision ended the dualism of review of local regulations from judicial review by the Supreme Court and executive review of regional regulations by the Ministry of Home Affairs to only a judicial review by the Supreme Court, also potentially increasing the number of cases of judicial review in the Supreme Court. Second, the concept of the implementation of a judicial review by the Supreme Court is carried out through legal renewal of the judicial review proceedings in the Supreme Court by including several important substances, related to hearings that are open to the public, the existence of a preliminary examination, hearing, verdict and decision making that are more open and fair.Keywords: Regional Regulation, Judicial Review, and Reformation ABSTRAKProblem judicial review Perda di Mahkamah Agung menjadi persoalan akademik dan praktikal serius yang perlu dipecahkan pascakeluarnya putusan Mahkamah konstitusi Nomor 137/PUU-XIII/2015. Terdapat dua masalah dalam tulisan ini, pertama, implikasi hukum Putusan Mahkamah konstitusi Nomor 137/PUU-XIII/2015 terhadap kelembagaan dan hukum acara judicial review perda di mahkamah agung, kedua, bagaimanakah konsep pelaksanaan judicial review perda oleh mahkamah agung dilakukan melalui pembaharuan hukum acara persidangan judicial review di mahkamah agung?. Berdasarkan pembahasan di atas maka dapat disimpulkan dua hal , pertama, implikasi hukum Putusan Mahkamah konstitusi Nomor 137/PUU-XIII/2015 terhadap kelembagaan dan hukum acara judicial review perda di mahkamah agung adalah semakin kuat dan meningkatnya kewenangan judicial review di mahakamah agung. Putusan ini mengakhiri dualisme review perda dari judicial review oleh MA dan executive review perda oleh kemendagri menjadi hanya judicial review oleh Mahkamah Agung, juga berpotensi meningkatkan jumlah perkara judicial review perda di mahkamah agung. Kedua, konsep pelaksanaan judicial review perda oleh mahkamah agung dilakukan melalui pembaharuan hukum acara persidangan judicial review di mahkamah agung dengan memasukan beberapa substansi penting, terkait sidang yang terbuka untuk umum, adanya proses pemeriksaan pendahuluan, pemeriksaan persidangan, pembuktian dan pengambilan putusan yang lebih terbuka dan fair.Kata Kunci : Peaturan Daerah, JudicialReview, dan Pembaharuan.

Download Full-text

KONSTITUSIONALITAS MATERIELE WEDERRECHTELIJK DALAM KEBIJAKAN PEMBERANTASAN TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI

Jurnal Yudisial ◽

10.29123/jy.v11i2.260 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 11 (2) ◽

pp. 131

Author(s):

Ade Adhari

Keyword(s):

Judicial Review ◽

Criminal Code ◽

Court Decision ◽

Constitutional Court ◽

Legal Certainty ◽

Legal Norms ◽

The Law ◽

Principle Of Legality ◽

Laws And Regulations

ABSTRAKPutusan Nomor 003/PUU-IV/2006 menyatakan materiele wederrechtelijk dalam Undang-Undang Tindak Pidana Korupsi bertentangan dengan Pasal 28D ayat (1) UUD NRI 1945, dan tidak berlaku mengikat. Penelitian ini berupaya memahami apakah tepat atau tidak pertimbangan Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam putusan tersebut. Dalam menjawab permasalahan tersebut digunakan penelitian doktrinal, norma hukum serta asas yang melandasi lahirnya putusan tersebut. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian diketahui terdapat ketidaktepatan dalam pertimbangan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Mahkamah Konstitusi telah keliru dalam usahanya memvalidasi Penjelasan Pasal 2 ayat (1) Undang-Undang Tindak Pidana Korupsi dengan menguji berdasarkan asas legalitas yang terdapat dalam Pasal 1 ayat (1) KUHP. Padahal prinsipnya pengujian yang dilakukan oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi adalah menguji undang-undang terhadap UUD NRI 1945. Selain itu, Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi berorientasi pada asas legalitas yang hanya mengutamakan rechtssicherheit dan mengesampingkan keberadaan gerechtigkeit dan zweckmässigkeit. Lebih dari itu, tidak diakuinya materiele wederrechtelijk telah meniadakan eksistensi hukum yang hidup di masyarakat sebagai sumber hukum untuk menyatakan suatu perbuatan bersifat melawan hukum. Hal ini bertentangan dengan mandat Pasal 18B ayat (2) UUD NRI 1945, dan berbagai peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku. Dengan demikian materiele wederrechtelijk tidak bertentangan dengan kontitusi.Kata kunci: materiele wederrechtelijk, korupsi, konstitusionalitas. ABSTRACT Constitutional Court Decision Number 003/PUUIV/2006 states unlawful criminal acts (materiele wederrechtelijk) in the Anti-Corruption Law is inconsistent with Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, and not binding. Doctrinal research, legal norms and principles underlying the birth of the court decision are used in answering whether the problem arising from the decision is justified. Based on the result of the research, there is an inaccuracy in the consideration of the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court has erred in its attempt to validate the Elucidation of Article 2 Paragraph (1) of Corruption Law by examining based on the legality principle contained in Article 1 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code. Whereas in principle, what has been conducted by the Constitutional Court is a judicial review of the law against the 1945 Constitution. In addition, the Constitutional Court’s decision is oriented on the principle of legality which only prioritizes legal certainty (Rechtssicherheit) and overrides justice (Gerechtigkeit) and utility (Zweckmässigkeit). Moreover, the unrecognized materiele wederrechtelijk has negated the existence of a living law in society as a source of law to declare unlawful acts. This is contrary to the mandate of Article 18B paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution and various prevailing laws and regulations. Thus, the material wederrechtelijk is not contradictory to the constitution. Keywords: materiele wederrechtelijk, corruption, constitutionality.

Download Full-text

Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi yang Memuat Keadilan Sosial dalam Pengujian Undang-Undang

Jurnal Konstitusi ◽

10.31078/jk1648 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 16 (4) ◽

pp. 834

Author(s):

Anna Triningsih ◽

Oly Viana Agustine

Keyword(s):

Social Justice ◽

Judicial Review ◽

Oil And Gas ◽

The State ◽

Constitutional Court ◽

State Control ◽

Social Security Systems ◽

Security Systems ◽

The Public ◽

The People

Mahkamah Konstitusi sebagai lembaga yang lahir berdasarkan amandemen UUD 1945 memiliki fungsi sebagai lembaga terakhir penafsir konstitusi atau yang sering disebut sebagai the final interpreter of constitution. Fungsi ini biasanya dilaksanakan Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam kewenangannya menguji undang-undang terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar 1945. Terhadap frasa, ayat, pasal atau undang-undang yang dianggap tidak jelas atau multitafsir telah dimohonkan untuk diberikan penafsiran sesuai dengan konstitusi. Pun demikian dengan frasa keadilan sosial yang terdapat dalam beberapa undang-undang yang telah diputus Mahkamah Konstitusi. Terdapat 16 (enam belas) putusan dengan 10 (sepuluh) isu konstitusional dalam pengujian undang-undang selama periode 2003–2010 dalam bidang ketenagalistrikan, minyak dan gas bumi, ketenagakerjaan, sistem jaminan sosial nasional, sumber daya air, penanaman modal, pajak penghasilan, pengelolaan wilayah pesisir dan pulau-pulau kecil dan pertambangan mineral dan batu bara. Dari 10 isu konstitusional tersebut, dalam pertimbangan hukumnya Mahkamah lebih sering memilih menggunakan interpretasi gramatikal, interpretasi historis, interpretasi teleologis atau sosilologis dan interpretasi komparatif atau perbandingan. Mahkamah Konstitusi menyatakan bahwa keadilan sosial dalam Pembukaan UUD 1945, mengandung makna “penguasaan negara” artinya negara harus menjadikan penguasaan terhadap cabang produksi yang dikuasainya itu memenuhi tiga hal yang menjadi kepentingan masyarakat: ketersediaan yang cukup, distribusi yang merata, dan terjangkaunya harga bagi orang banyak. Dengan dikuasai oleh negara, keadilan sosial diartikan mencakup makna penguasaan oleh negara dalam luas yang bersumber dan diturunkan dari konsepsi kedaulatan rakyat Indonesia atas segala sumber kekayaan “bumi, air dan kekayaan alam yang terkandung di dalamnya”, termasuk pula di dalamnya pengertian kepemilikan publik oleh kolektivitas rakyat atas sumber-sumber kekayaan dimaksud. The Constitutional Court as an institution born based on the amendments to the 1945 Constitution has a function as the final interpreter of constitution. This function is usually carried out by the Constitutional Court in its authority to examine laws against the 1945 Constitution. Regarding phrases, verses, articles or laws that are deemed unclear or multiple interpretations have been requested to be interpreted in accordance with the constitution. Even so with the phrase social justice contained in several laws that have been decided by the Constitutional Court. There are 16 (sixteen) decisions with 10 (ten) constitutional issues in judicial review during the 2003–2010 period in the fields of electricity, oil and gas, employment, national social security systems, water resources, investment, tax income, management of coastal areas and small islands and mining of minerals and coal. Of the 10 constitutional issues, in its legal considerations the Court often chooses to use grammatical interpretations, historical interpretations, teleological or sosilological interpretations and comparative or comparative interpretations. The Constitutional Court stated that social justice in the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution, contained the meaning of "state control" means that the state must make control of the controlled branch of production fulfill three things that are in the public interest: adequate availability, equitable distribution and affordability. By being controlled by the state, social justice is interpreted to include the meaning of control by the state in a broad sense that is derived and derived from the conception of the sovereignty of the people of Indonesia over all sources of wealth "earth, water and natural wealth contained in it" the people for the intended sources of wealth.

Download Full-text

Menimbang Kedudukan Majelis Kehormatan Mahkamah Konstitusi Setelah Terbitnya Undang-Undang Nomor 7 Tahun 2020

Jurnal Konstitusi ◽

10.31078/jk1749 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 17 (4) ◽

pp. 899

Author(s):

Zuhad Aji Firmantoro

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

State Government ◽

Judicial Review ◽

Court Decision ◽

Constitutional Court ◽

Material Research ◽

Representative Government ◽

Conceptual Approach ◽

Constitutional State ◽

The Supreme Court

AbstrakPenelitian ini membahas tentang penafsiran Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam pengujian Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 2011 tentang Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 24 Tahun 2003 tentang Mahkamah Konstitusi terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945 yang putusannya mengabulkan sebagian permohonan pemohon berupa perubahan terhadap komposisi anggota Majelis Kehormatan Mahkamah Konstitusi, yakni Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 49/PUU-IX/2011. Ada dua permasalahan yang diteliti dalam penelitian ini, yaitu Pertama, apakah masuknya unsur DPR, Pemerintah dan Mahkamah Agung bertentangan dengan Pasal 1 ayat (3) dan Pasal 24 ayat (1) dan ayat (2) UUD 1945? Kedua, apakah implikasi putusan pembatalan Pasal 27A ayat (2) huruf C, D, dan E terhadap mekanisme saling kontrol (chekcs and balance) antar cabang kekuasaan negara (eksekutif, legislatif dan yudikatif) di Indonesia? Metode penelitian yang digunakan yakni penelitian yuridis normatif dengan menggunakan pendekatan konseptual, selain itu, dikaji dengan studi kasus yang berkaitan dengan materi yang dikaji. Hasil dari penelitian ini adalah, pertama: berdasarkan kajian Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 49/PUU-IX/2011 yang mengabulkan sebagian permohonan pengujian Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 2011 tentang Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 24 Tahun 2003 tentang Mahkamah Konstitusi terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945, Mahkamah Konstitusi menyatakan bahwa pembuat undang-undang telah membahayakan kemerdekaan kekuasaan kehakiman sebagaimana diatur dalam pasal 1 ayat (3) dan Pasal 24 ayat (1) dan ayat (2) UUD 1945 dengan memasukan unsur Pemerintah, DPR dan Mahkamah Agung dalam keanggotaan Majelis Kehormatan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Kedua, Putusan tersebut berimplikasi pada keanggotaan Majelis Kehormatan Mahkamah Konstitusi yang terdiri dan terbatas atas 2 (dua) unsur yaitu Mahkamah Konstitusi dan Komisi Yudisial. Karena itu utusan Mahkamah Konstitusi tersebut dianggap telah berhasil menjaga berlakunya asas check and balance antar 3 (tiga) cabang kekuasaan (eksekutif, legislatif dan yudikatif) dalam sistem ketatanegaraan indonesia.AbstractThis research elaborates the Constitutional Court interpretation within Decision No. 49/PUU-IX/2011 on judicial review of Law No. 8 of 2011 on amendments of Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court which its decision has granted mostly the petitioner’s petitions to change the Honorary Council of the Constitutional Court members composition. There are at least two examined issues in this study, they are: Firstly, does the addition of elements House of Representative, Government and the Supreme Court contradict Article 1 paragraph (3) and Article 24 paragraph (1) and (2) of the 1945 Constitution? And secondly, what is the implication of the decision to repeal Article 27A paragraph (2) letters C, D, and E for check and balance between three branches of state government (executive, legislative and judicial) in Indonesia? This research is normative legal research that uses a conceptual approach, also reviewed with case studies related to material research. The results show; Firstly, based on the study to Indonesian Constitutional Court Decision No. 49/PUU-IX/2011 which accepted most of the petitioner’s petitions on judicial review of Law No. 8 of 2011, the Constitutional Court stated that the addition of elements House of Representative, Government and the Supreme Court as members in the Honorary Council of the Constitutional Court then legislators have endangered the freedom of judicial power as regulated Article 1 paragraph (3) and Article 24 paragraph (1) and (2) the 1945 Constitution. Secondly, this decision has an impact on the members of the Honorary Council of the Constitutional Court which only consists of two elements, namely the constitutional court and the judicial commission. Therefore, the Constitutional Court Decision is considered successful in keeping the principle of check and balance between three branches of state government in the Indonesian constitutional state system.

Download Full-text