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

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.

scholarly journals URGENSI PEMBENTUKAN UNDANG-UNDANG HAK ANGKET DPR RI (THE URGENCY OF MAKING THE LAW ON THE RIGHT OF INQUIRY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA)

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 177-194
Author(s):  
Novianto Murthi Hantoro
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Current Regulation ◽  
Presidential System ◽  
Subject And Object ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right

Prior to the decision of the Constitutional Court (MK), the implementation of the right to inquiry was regulated in two laws, namely Law No. 6 of 1954 on the Establishment of the Rights of Inquiry of the House of Representatives (DPR) and Law No. 27 of 2009 on MPR, DPR, DPD, and DPRD. Through proposal for judicial review, MK decided the Law on the Rights of Inquiry was null and void because it was not in accordance with the presidential system adopted in the 1945 Constitution. Today, the exercise of the right of inquiry is only based on Law on MPR, DPR, DPD, and DPRD. Nonetheless, the Amendment of Law No. 27 of 2009 into Law No. 17 of 2014 could not accommodate some substances of the null and void Law on the Rights of Inquiry. The urgency of the formulation of the law on the right to inquiry, other than to carry out the Constitutional Court’s decision; are to close the justice gap of the current regulation; to avoid multi-interpretation of the norm, for example on the subject and object of the right of inquiry; and to execute the mandate of Article 20A paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution. The regulation on the right to inquiry shall be formulated separately from the Law on MPR, DPR, DPD and DPRD, with at least several substances to be discussed, namely: definition, mechanisms, and procedure, as well as examination of witnesses, expert, and documents. AbstrakSebelum adanya putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK), pelaksanaan hak angket diatur dalam dua undang-undang, yaitu Undang-Undang Nomor 6 Tahun 1954 tentang Penetapan Hak Angket DPR (UU Angket) dan Undang-Undang Nomor 27 Tahun 2009 tentang Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat, Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat, Dewan Perwakilan Daerah, dan Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah (UU MPR, DPR, DPD, dan DPRD). Melalui permohonan pengujian undang-undang, MK membatalkan keberlakuan UU Angket karena sudah tidak sesuai dengan sistem presidensial yang dianut dalam UUD 1945. Pelaksanaan hak angket saat ini hanya berdasarkan UU MPR, DPR, DPD, dan DPRD. Penggantian UU No. 27 Tahun 2009 menjadi UU No. 17 Tahun 2014 tentang MPR, DPR, DPD, dan DPRD ternyata tidak mengakomodasi beberapa substansi UU Angket yang telah dibatalkan. Berdasarkan hal tersebut, terdapat urgensi untuk membentuk Undang-Undang tentang Hak Angket DPR RI. Urgensi tersebut, selain sebagai tindak lanjut putusan MK, juga untuk menutup celah kekosongan hukum pada pengaturan saat ini dan untuk menghindari multi-interpretasi norma, misalnya terhadap subjek dan objek hak angket. Pengaturan mengenai hak angket perlu diatur di dalam undang-undang yang terpisah dari UU MPR, DPR, DPD, dan DPRD, dengan materi muatan yang berisi tentang pengertian-pengertian, mekanisme, dan hukum acara. Pembentukan Undang-Undang tentang Hak Angket diperlukan guna memenuhi amanat Pasal 20A ayat (4) UUD 1945.

scholarly journals Politik Legislasi Dewan Perwakilan Daerah Republik Indonesia Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 92/PUU-X/2012

2015 ◽  
pp. 101-110
Author(s):  
King Faisal Sulaiman
Keyword(s):  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Presidential System ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Legislative Review

The Constitutional Court Decision, Number 92/PUU-X/2012 has opened a new legislation policy for the Senate of Indonesia. The impact of this decision can strengthen legislation competence to the Senate in inisiating the legal drafting, as attributed on Article 22D of the 1945 Constitution of Republic of Indonensia. The decision can be a landmark decision for struggling the strong bicameral system and presidential system after amendment of the 1945 Constitution. As the impact of the decision, the house of representatives must soon take legislative review especially to Act Number 27 of 2009 and Act Number 12 of 2011 to accommodate the legal substance of the decision (The Constitutional Court Decision, Number 92/PUU-X/2012).

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

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.

PERBEDAAN TAFSIR MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI DALAM MEMUTUS PERKARA PEMILIHAN UMUM SERENTAK

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 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.

scholarly journals The Implication of Constitutional Court Decision Number 36/PUU-XV/2017 on the Independence of Corruption Eradication Commission

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 42
Author(s):  
Suparto Suparto ◽  
Dedy Gusniawan
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Strong Influence ◽  
State Institution ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Parliamentary System ◽  
Court Judge ◽  
Library Research ◽  
The Future

This study aims to find out the considerations of the Constitutional Court Judge in issuing Constitutional Court Decision No. 36/PUU-XV/2017 as well as to identify the implications of the Decision on the Independence of Corruption Eradication Commission. The method used in this study was normative juridical method. The data collected through library research were then analyzed analytic-descriptive. The formulations of the problem are; 1) What are the considerations of the Constitutional Court Judge in issuing Constitutional Court Decision No. 36/PUU-XV/2017 against judicial review of Law No. 17 of 2017 concerning MD3? and 2) What are the implications of the Constitutional Court Decision No. 36/PUU-XV/2017 against judicial review of Law No. 17 of 2017 concerning MD3 on the independence of Corruption Eradication Commission? As results, it was found that; 1) in Constitutional Court Decision No. 36/PUU-XV/2017, the Constitutional Court states that the inquiry right owned by the House of Representatives over the Corruption Eradication Commission is constitutional as long as it does not relate to the authority of investigation and prosecution owned by the Corruption Eradication Commission with the consideration that the Corruption Eradication Commission is a state institution that includes to the realm of executives; and 2) The House of Representatives will give a strong influence on the Corruption Eradication Commission even though the inquiry right owned by the House of Representatives cannot touch the authority of the Corruption Eradication Commission in conducting investigations and prosecutions. However, there is an indication that the effort to provide inquiry right is not a legal effort but rather a political effort which is widely applied in countries adhering to a parliamentary system where the parliament tends to be more dominant than the executive. Hence, it can be concluded that; 1) in this Decision, the Constitutional Court Judge did not use a stronger grammatical and systematic interpretation based on the original intense. Besides, this Decision is ambiguous and potentially contradicts with the previous Decision, namely Constitutional Court Decision No.012-016-019/PUU-IV/2006; and 2)� there will be consequences for the Corruption Eradication Commission in the future, especially in terms of independence, since it can be used as an object of inquiry right by the House of Representatives.�Implikasi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 36/Puu-Xv/2017 Terhadap Independensi Komisi Pemberantasan KorupsiTujuan dari pennelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui pertimbangan Hakim Konstitusi dalam memutus perkara No. 36/PUU-XV/2017 dan Implikasi dari putusan tersebut terhadap Independensi Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi. Metode penelitian yang digunakan yaitu� hukum normatif dengan cara studikepustakaan,data yang digunakan� adalah data sekunder dananalisis data dilakukan secara deskriptis analitis. Rumusan masalahnya� adalah (1). Bagaimanakah pertimbangan Hakim� Konstitusi dalam memutus perkara No. 36/PUU-XV/2017 terhadap pengujian UU No. 17 Tahun 2017 Tentang MD3 dan (2). Bagaimanakah implikasi putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi� No.36/PUU-XV/2017 terhadap pengujian UU No. 17 Tahun 2017 Tentang MD3 terhadap independensi Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi. Berdasarkan penelitian diperoleh hasil (1) MK dalam putusan No. 36/PUU-XV/2017 menyatakan� bahwa kewenangan hak angket yang dilakukan� Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat� terhadap Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi adalah konstitusional sepanjang tidak menyangkut kewenangan penyidikan, penyelidikan, dan penuntutan yang dimiliki oleh Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi, dengan pertimbangan� Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi adalah lembaga negara yang termasuk ranah eksekutif. (2). Pengaruh tekanan yang diberikan Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat� kepada Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi akan amat kuat walaupun hak angket tersebut tidak dapat menyentuh kewenangan Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi dalam melakukan penyidikan, penyelidikan, dan penuntutan. Namun ada indikasi bahwa upaya angket pada dasarnya bukanlah upaya hukum melainkan upaya yang bersifat politis yang banyak dipraktekkan dalam negara penganut sistem parlementer yang cenderung dominan parlemen dibanding pihak eksekutif.Kesimpulan dari penelitian ini adalah (1).� Dalam putusan ini Hakim Konstitusi tidak� menggunakan penafsiran gramatikal dan sistematis yang lebih kuat dengan berlandaskan pada original intens. Selain ituPutusan Mahkamah Konstitusi ini adalah ambigu dan� berpotensi bertentangan dengan putusan sebelumnya yaitu putusan� Mahkamah Konstitusi� No.012-016-019/PUU-IV/2006.(2)� Adanya konsekuensi bagi Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi dimasa mendatang khususnya dalam hal independensi� akibatdari dapat dijadikannya objek hak angket oleh Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat

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

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.

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 KAJIAN YURIDIS TERHADAP PENEGASAN HIEARAKI PERATURAN PERUNDANG-UNDANGAN DI INDONESIA DALAM PERSPEKTIF STUFEN THEORIE

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 95
Author(s):  
Muhammad Yusrizal Adi Syaputra
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
State Institutions ◽  
Binding Force ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Uncertainty

Rule lower against the rules of higher then lower regulation it can test the material (judicial review) to be canceled entirely or partially canceled. The assertion of hierarchy intended to prevent overlap between legislation that could give rise to legal uncertainty. Position regulations set by the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) House of Representatives (DPR), the Regional Representatives Council (DPD), the Supreme Court (MA), the Constitutional Court (MK), the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK), Commission Judicial (KY) , Bank Indonesia (BI), the Minister, the Agency, Organization, or commissions, in the Indonesian legal system recognized by Act No. 12 of 2011 either were born because of higher regulatory mandate and within the scope and authority of the minister. Thus, no doubt that the regulations set by state institutions, have binding force that must be obeyed by the parties set forth therein. While the Regulations issued policy also recognized as an Freies Ermessen in the execution of its duties and functions.<br /><br />

scholarly journals IMPLIKASI JUDICIAL REVIEW TERHADAP HAK ANGKET YANG DIAJUKAN OLEH DPR PASCA PUTUSAN MK NO.26/PUU-XVI/2017 TENTANG PERMOHONAN HAK ANGKET DPR

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Agnes Fitryantica
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
State Power ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Negative Implication ◽  
Materials Used ◽  
Positively Charged

The Constitutional Court based on Article 24C of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia has 4 authorities and 1 obligation. These provisions are further contained in Article 10 of Law Number 24 Year 2003 concerning the Constitutional Court. The constitutional authority of the Constitutional Court in examining, adjudicating and deciding cases of judicial review of the constitution is about the constitutionality of norms. The method used is normative (doctrinal) legal research, using secondary data in the form of primary, tertiary and secondary legal materials. One of the legal materials used as the basis for analysis is the judge's decision and its implications for the judicial review. The results of the study that, the authority to test the Act against the 1945 Constitution theoretically or practically, makes the Constitutional Court as a controlling and balancing body in the administration of state power. The KPK is not the object of the Parlement questionnaire rights. The ruling emphasized that the KPK was an institution that could be the object of the questionnaire right by the Parlement. The implications of the decision of the Constitutional Court Number 36 / PUU-XV / 2017, can be grouped in two ways, namely: first, the implications are positively charged, namely the affirmation of the ownership of the House of Representatives questionnaire rights in Indonesian governance. Second, the negative implication is the possibility of using the DPR's excessive questionnaire rights without regard to existing limitations.Keywords : constitutional court; KPK; parlement.Mahkamah Konstitusi berdasarkan Pasal 24C UUD NRI Tahun 1945 memiliki 4 kewenangan dan 1 kewajiban. Ketentuan tersebut dituangkan lebih lanjut dalam Pasal 10 UU Nomor 24 Tahun 2003 tentang Mahkamah Konstitusi. Kewenangan konstitusional Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam memeriksa, mengadili dan memutus perkara pengujian undang-undang terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar adalah mengenai konstitusionalitas norma. Metode yang digunakan adalah penelitian hukum normatif (doktrinal), dengan menggunakan data sekunder berupa bahan hukum primer, tersier dan sekunder. Salah satu bahan hukum yang dijadikan dasar analisis adalah putusan hakim dan implikasinya terhadap yudicial review. Hasil penelitian bahwa, kewenangan menguji Undang-Undang terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 secara teoritis atau praktis, menjadikan Mahkamah Konstitusi sebagai lembaga pengontrol dan penyeimbang dalam penyelenggaraan kekuasaan negara, Dalam Putusan Nomor 36/PUU-XV/2017, Mahkamah Konstitusi memutuskan menolak permohonan pemohon yang pada intinya menyebut KPK bukan merupakan objek hak angket DPR. Putusan tersebut menegaskan KPK merupakan lembaga yang dapat menjadi objek hak angket oleh DPR. Implikasi dari putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 36/PUU-XV/2017 tersebut, dapat dikelompokkan dalam dua hal, yaitu: pertama, implikasi yang bermuatan positif, yaitu penegasan dimilikinya hak angket Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat dalam ketatanegaran Indonesia. Kedua, Implikasi yang bermuatan negatif yaitu adanya kemungkinan penggunaan hak angket DPR yang eksesif tanpa memperhatikan batasan-batasan yang ada.Kata Kunci: DPR; KPK; Mahkamah Konstitusi.     

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document