scholarly journals Implikasi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 93/PUU-X/2012 Bagi Penyelesaian Sengketa Bisnis dan Keuangan Syariah

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 691
Author(s):  
Khotibul Umam
Keyword(s):  
Financial Institutions ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
District Court ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Strong Statement ◽  
Potential Impact ◽  
Legal Uncertainty

The Decision of Constitutional Court No. 93/PUU-X/2012 regarding Judicial Review of Law No. 21/2008 regarding Sharia Banking with the Indonesian Constitution 1945 was giving a strong statement that the explanation of this a quolawhas a potential impact to arise legal uncertainty and legal confuse, meanwhile Article 55 in the whole still conform with the Constitution. The juridical implication from this a quodecision, i.e. The tribunal of District Court have to state if they have no authority to settle the case in sharia banking, althought it has been agreed in an akad (agreement). It has been stressed with the nature of Constitutional Court Decision “final and binding” and also bind all of citizens (erga omnes). Then, the opportunity to implement of its decision to sharia businees and financial institutions exist based on analogy, esp argumentum a fortiory. The expectation, it will give legal certainty in the context of Judicial that has an authority to settle the potential dispute between customer and sharia business and financial institutions.

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 KONSTITUSIONALITAS MATERIELE WEDERRECHTELIJK DALAM KEBIJAKAN PEMBERANTASAN TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI

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.

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

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

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

scholarly journals Urgensi Perluasan Objek Praperadilan Dalam Tindak Pidana Korupsi Ditinjau Dari Perspektif Perlindungan Hak Asasi Tersangka

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 66
Author(s):  
Ardli Nuur Ihsani
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Research Design ◽  
Deductive Reasoning ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Secondary Sources ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Legal Uncertainty ◽  
Do So

This present study aims to explore the urgency of pretrial object expansion as the Constitutional Court decision No21/PUU-XII/2014 on the criminal act of corruption is issued and this decision’s suitability with the objectives of pretrial concept. This research design of this study is normative research in which it used primary and secondary sources of law as the subject of study. Moreover, these sources are analyzed by using syllogism of deductive reasoning. Based on the analysis, it can be concluded that Constitutional Court Decision No 21/PUU-XII/2014 is claimed to be significant as it is viewed from the perspective of suspects’ human rights. However, in the criminal act of corruption field, this expansion of pretrial object limits the Corruption Eradication Commission in eradicating the corruption acts and results the legal uncertainty because in fact, verdicts regarding the pretrial proposal are different among each other. Besides, they could not provide the legal certainty on what case is exactly questioned in pretrial object. This is due to the high number of pretrial proposal made by the suspects by claiming that the investigator team who conduct the investigation is not authorized to do so instead of claiming of the completion of prior evidence.

scholarly journals Penolakan Permohonan Praperadilan Terhadap Penetapan Tersangka dan Penyitaan (Kajian Putusan Nomor 01/Pra.Pid/2016/PN-Mbo)

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 73
Author(s):  
Hendrawan Sofyan ◽  
Dahlan Ali ◽  
Suhaimi Suhaimi ◽  
Mansari Mansari
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
District Court ◽  
Sufficient Evidence ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Court Ruling ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
The West ◽  
Legal Rules

Abstrak: Hakim praperadilan Pengadilan Negeri Meulaboh melalui putusan Nomor 01/Pra.Pid/2016/PN-Mbo telah menolak permohonan praperadilan dengan objek perkaranya penetapan tersangka dan penyitaan. Padahal penetapan tersangka tidak sesuai dengan ketentuan peraturan perundang-undangan yakni tidak adanya penetapan pengadilan untuk penyitaan dan tidak adanya bukti yang cukup untuk menetapkannya sebagai tersangka. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui pertimbangan hakim menolak praperadilan pemohon dan tinjauan yuridis terhadap penolakan permohonan praperadilan. Penelitian ini ingin mengkaji pertimbangan hakim menolak praperadilan dan tinjauan yuridis terhadap penolakan tersebut. Penelitian ini termasuk ke dalam kategori penelitian yuridis normatif atau dokrtinal dengan tujuan mengkaji tentang asas-asas dan kaidah hukum sesuai dengan kajian ilmu hukum. Bahan hukum primer yang digunakan yaitu UU Nomor 8 Tahun 1981 tentang KUHAP dan Putusan Nomor 01/Pra.Pid/2016/PN-Mbo, Putusan MK Nomor 21/PPU-XII/2014. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa pertimbangan hakim menolak praperadilan pemohon yaitu: Pertama, Penetapan tersangka baru menjadi objek praperadilan pada sejak dikeluarkannya putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 21/PPU-XII/2014 yang memperluas objek praperadilan yakni pada tahun 2015 dan penyitaan yang dilakukan oleh Polres Aceh Barat telah memenuhi dan sesuai dengan peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku. Dalam perspektif yuridis, putusan hakim Nomor  01/Pra.Pid/2016/PN-Mbo masih banyak kelemahan dan kekeliruan. Pertama, hakim menyatakan bahwa penetapan tersangka bukanlah objek praperadilan sebelum adanya putusan MK, padahal praperadilan diajukan pemohon pada tahun 2016 setelah adanya putusan MK. Kedua, menurut hakim praperadilan penyitaan yang dilakukan telah sesuai padahal tidak adanya penetapan pengadilan untuk dilakukan penyitaan. Ketiga, penolakan praperadilan cenderung melanggar HAM, karena setelah ditolak hingga saat ini tahun 2018 tidak dilimpahkan kasus tersebut ke Pengadilan sehingga tidak adanya kepastian hukum bagi tersangka.Abstract: The pretrial judge of the Meulaboh District Court through Decision Number 01 / Pra.Pid / 2016 / PN-Mbo has rejected a pretrial application with the object of his case for the determination of a suspect and confiscation. Even though the determination of the suspect is not in accordance with the provisions of the legislation, namely the absence of a court's determination for confiscation and the lack of sufficient evidence to determine it as a suspect. This study aims to determine the consideration of judges rejecting pretrial applicants and juridical review of rejecting pretrial applications. This study wants to examine the consideration of judges rejecting pretrial and judicial review of the rejection. This research belongs to the category of normative or doctrinal juridical research with the aim of reviewing the principles and legal rules in accordance with the study of law. The primary legal material used is Law Number 8 of 1981 concerning KUHAP and Decision Number 01 / Pra.Pid / 2016 / PN-Mbo, Constitutional Court Decision Number 21 / PPU-XII / 2014. The results showed that the judge's judgment rejected the applicant's pretrial, namely: First, Determination of the suspect was only the object of pretrial since the issuance of the Constitutional Court ruling Number 21 / PPU-XII / 2014 which expanded the object of pretrial namely in 2015 and the seizure by the West Aceh Police fulfill and comply with applicable laws and regulations. In a juridical perspective, the decision of judge Number 01 / Pra.Pid / 2016 / PN-Mbo still has many weaknesses and errors. First, the judge stated that the determination of the suspect was not the object of pretrial before the Constitutional Court's decision, even though the pretrial was filed by the applicant in 2016 after the Constitutional Court's decision. Secondly, according to the pretrial judge, the seizure carried out was appropriate even though there was no court ruling for confiscation. Third, pretrial refusal tends to violate human rights, because after being rejected until now in 2018 the case has not been transferred to the Court so that there is no legal certainty for the suspect.

scholarly journals Pembatalan Putusan Arbitrase oleh Pengadilan dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 15/PUU-XII/2014

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 701 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tri Ariprabowo ◽  
R. Nazriyah
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
District Court ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Binding Force ◽  
Arbitral Award ◽  
Legal Uncertainty ◽  
Mutual Agreement ◽  
Arbitration Award

Kewenangan pengadilan dalam proses penyelesaian sengketa melalui arbitrase antara lain, putusan arbitrase harus didaftarkan di Pengadilan Negeri. Menurut Mahkamah, Penjelasan Pasal 70 Undang-Undang Nomor 30 tahun 1999 Tentang Arbitrase dan Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa (UU AAPS) menambah norma baru dan menimbulkan ketidakpastian hukum. Pasal 70 UU AAPS tersebut sudah cukup jelas (expressis verbis), yang justru menimbulkan multi tafsir adalah penjelasan pasal tersebut sehingga menimbulkan ketidakpastian hukum yang adil. Mahkamah menyatakan bahwa, Penjelasan Pasal 70 UU AAPS bertentangan dengan Pasal 28 ayat (1) UUD 1945 dan tidak mempunyai kekuatan mengikat. Dengan adanya putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 15/PUU-XII/2014, bagi para pihak yang tidak puas terhadap putusan arbitrase mempunyai peluang yang lebar untuk dapat pengajukan permohonan pembatalan putusan arbitrase tanpa harus dibuktikan terlebih dahulu di Pengadilan. Hak para pihak untuk mengajukan permohonan pembatalan putusan arbitrase sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 70 UU AAPS dapat dikesampingkan berdasarkan kesepakatan bersama para pihak. Dengan demikian putusan arbitrase yang merupakan mahkota seorang Arbiter tidak mudah “tercabik” oleh suatu kepentingan. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 15/PUU-XII/2014 harus diapresiasi dan secepatnya direspon oleh pembentuk undang-undang untuk merevisi UU No. 30 Tahun 1999 terkait dengan mekanisme pembatalan putusan arbitrase setelah adanya putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi tersebut.The jurisdiction of the court in the process of resolving disputes through arbitration among other arbitral rulings shall be registered in the district court. According to the Court, the Explanation of Article 70 of Law No. 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (Act AAPS) adds new norms and creates legal uncertainty. Article 70 of the AAPS Act is quite clear (expressis verbis), the thing which leads to multiple interpretations is an explanation of the article so that this rises fair legal uncertainty. It stated that, Explanation of Article 70 of AAPS Law is contrary to Article 28 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution and has no binding force. By the decision of the Constitutional CourtNumber 15/PUUXII/2014, for the parties which are not satisfied with the arbitration decision, this provides wide opportunities to pursue cancellation request of arbitral decision without having been proofed in court. The rights of the parties to apply for the cancellation of an arbitral award under Article 70 of AAPS Law may be waived by mutual agreement of the parties. Thus the arbitration award which is the crown of an arbitrator does not easily "torn apart" by an interest.Constitutional Court decision should be appreciated and quickly responded to by the legislators to revise Law No. 30, 1999 related to the cancellation mechanism arbitration decision after the decision of the Constitutional Court.

ASAS KEPASTIAN HUKUM DAN ASAS KEBEBASAN BERKONTRAK SEBAGAI PERTIMBANGAN UTAMA DALAM PENYELESAIAN SENGKETA PERBANKAN SYARIAH (Kajian Yuridis Putusan MK Nomor 93/PUU-X/2012)

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 69
Author(s):  
Edi Hudiata
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Islamic Banking ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Ideal Norm ◽  
Freedom Of Contract ◽  
Binding Force

Since the verdict of the Constitutional Court (MK) Number 93/PUU-X/2012 pronounced on Thursday, August 29, 2013, concerning the judicial review of Law No. 21 of 2008 on Islamic Banking, it is no longer dualism dispute resolution. The verdict as well as strengthen the jurisdiction of Religious Court to resolve Islamic banking disputes. In consideration of the judges, judges agreed stating that Article 55 paragraph (2) and (3) of Law No. 21 of 2008 which is an ideal norm, contains no constitutional problems. The problem is the explanation of the constitutional article 55 paragraph (2) of the Act. The emergence of the Constitutional Court verdict No. 93/PUU-X/2012 which substantially states that the explanation of Article 55 paragraph (2) of Law No. 21 of 2008 does not have binding force, basically does not violate the principle of freedom of contract which is common in contract law. The parties are allowed to make a dispute resolution agreement out of religious court based on provisions as Act No. 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution. Keywords: dispute resolution, legal certainty and the principle of freedom of contract

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 Mengukur Konstitusionalitas Peninjauan Kembali (PK) Kedua dalam Perkara Perdata

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 452-474
Author(s):  
Priyo Handoko
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Due Process Of Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
Civil Cases ◽  
Constitutional Analysis

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.

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

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

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

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document