scholarly journals Implikasi Hukum Pengaturan Hukum Acara Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam Bentuk Peraturan Mahkamah Konstitusi

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 23
Author(s):  
Aan Eko Widiarto

Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia 1945 (UUD 1945) Pasal 24C ayat (6) menentukan bahwa hukum acara serta ketentuan lainnya tentang Mahkamah Konstitusi diatur dengan undang-undang. Berdasarkan ketentuan tersebut jelas bahwa hukum cara Mahkamah Konstitusi diatur dengan undang-undang. Makna frasa "diatur dengan" menurut Undang-Undang Nomor 12 Tahun 2011 tentang Pembentukan Peraturan Perundang-undangan materi muatan itu harus diatur hanya di dalam Peraturan Perundang-undangan yang didelegasikan dan tidak boleh didelegasikan lebih lanjut ke Peraturan Perundang-undangan yang lebih rendah (subdelegasi). Pokok permasalahan yang penting diteliti adalah apa implikasi hukum pengaturan hukum acara Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam bentuk Peraturan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Sesuai dengan permasalahan yang diangkat, penelitian ini adalah penelitian doktrinal atau juga disebut sebagai penelitian normatif. Pendekatan yang digunakan adalah pendekatan teoretis (theoretical approach), dan pendekatan konseptual (conceptual approach). Implikasi hukum pengaturan hukum acara Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam bentuk Peraturan Mahkamah Konstitusi berdasarkan hasil penelitian ini teridentifikasi ada 3 (tiga), yaitu: ketidakpastian hukum, pelanggaran hierarki peraturan perundang-undangan, dan ketiadaan tertib hukum. Akibat ketiga implikasi hukum tersebut maka penyelenggaraan wewenang dan kewajiban Mahkamah Konstitusi menjadi tidak sah. Namun demikian mengingat asas kemanfaatan dan asas praduga rechtsmatig maka selama memberi mandat dan sampai dengan belum ada pembatalan Peraturan Mahkamah Konstitusi maka tindakan MK selalu harus dianggap benar.1945 Constitution (UUD 1945) Article 24C Paragraph (6) provides that the procedural law and other provisions concerning the Constitutional Court shall be regulated by act. Based on these provisions it is clear that the law of the way the Constitutional Court is regulated by act. The meaning of the phrase "governed by" pursuant to Act No. 12 of 2011 concerning the Establishment of the Acts and Regulations on the contents of the content shall be regulated only in the delegated Legislation and shall not be further delegated to the lower Legislation Regulations (subdelegations ). The main issue that is important to examine is what is the legal implication of regulation of procedural law of the Constitutional Court in the form of Constitutional Court Regulation not in an Act. In accordance with the issues raised, this study is a doctrinal research or also referred to as normative research. The approaches are theoretical approach, and the conceptual approach. The legal implications of the procedural law setting of the Constitutional Court in the form of Constitutional Court Regulation based on the results of this study are identified there are 3 (three), namely: legal uncertainty, violation of legal hierarchy of regulations, and absence of orderly law. As a result of these three legal implications, the legal consequences for the implementation of the authority and duties of the Constitutional Court become invalid. However, considering the principle of expediency and presupposition principle of rechtsmatig then as long as giving benefit and until there is no cancellation of the Constitutional Court Regulation, the action of the Constitutional Court must always be considered true.

SASI ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 286
Author(s):  
Rahman Hasima

This research aims to determine the legal implications of the agreement on which the sharia banking dispute resolution clause was submitted through the state court's post-decision of the Constitutional Court No. 93/PUU-X/2012. The research method used normative research with a statute approach and a conceptual approach and analyzed descriptive qualitative. The results of the study show that the contract that contains the clause for the settlement of Islamic banking disputes through the District Court after the Constitutional Court decision has the implication of being null and void because it contradicts the contract or causa that is lawful, so that the parties make an addendum so that no future disputes occur.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 140-153
Author(s):  
Hasyim Harun

AbstractThis research examines the position of underage children who act as guardians in marriage, by looking at the legal implications and urgency of guardianship hierarchy in fiqh munakahat. The purpose of this study is to strengthen the normative analysis of the absolute position of a guardian in marriage. The method in this research is literature review, with a normative theological approach and descriptive analysis.The findings of this study show that children who are not old enough are not legal guardians in marriage. The legal implication can affect the validity of the marriage. In the urgency of guardianship, underage children may be in the closest position in the guardianship hierarchy, but children who are underage do not fulfill the absolute requirements of a guardian in marriage, so their guardianship rights are automatically terminated.Keywords: Children; Guardian of marriage; Legal Consequences; Trusteeship order.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 505
Author(s):  
Muh Risnain

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.


2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 40-46
Author(s):  
Sugianto Sugianto ◽  
Sudarsono Sudarsono ◽  
Aan Eko Widiarto

This article aims to analyze the legal implications of regulating the authority of the Regional Representative Council of the Republic of Indonesia (DPD RI) in supervising the draft regional regulations and regional regulations in Indonesia. This is based on the existence of a conflict of norms in Article 249 paragraph (1) letter j of Law Number 2 of 2018 with the Constitution, especially regarding the authority of the DPD RI itself. This study uses a normative juridical research method with a statutory and conceptual approach. The result of this study is the existence of legal uncertainty in the supervision of draft regional regulations and regional regulations. Because Article 22D paragraph (1) to paragraph (3) of the Constitution does not provide and does not mention the authority to monitor and evaluate draft regional regulations and regional regulations as stipulated in Article 249 paragraph (1) letter j of Law N 2 of 2018.


FIAT JUSTISIA ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 261
Author(s):  
Bagus Hermanto ◽  
I Gede Yusa ◽  
Nyoman Mas Aryani

Constitutional Court is one of the conductors in Indonesia’s judicial power as regulated by Article 24 (2) and Article 24C (1) through (6) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, that adjudicates at the first and last levels whose decision is final including in the context of judicial review in the Constitutional Court. The provisions of H.I.R. and R.Bg. firmly reflect one of the principles in the civil procedural law, namely ultra petita, that represent judges prohibition from making decisions beyond what is requested. However, the practice in the Constitutional Court found several Constitutional Court Decisions classified as ultra petita decisions so that there is an academic step to justify the existence of Constitutional Court ruling that determine as ultra petita decisions. This study aims to find the justification of the Constitutional Court in deciding ultra petita through a philosophical, theoretical and legal dogmatic perspective. This study used a normative legal method with the conceptual approach, case studies approach, and legislation or statutory approach. This study shows that based on characteristics of cases under the authority of the Constitutional Court, it cannot be said that the prohibition of ultra petita can be applied to justice in the Constitutional Court, both from a philosophical, theoretical, and legal dogmatic based on several Constitutional Court Decision.


Author(s):  
Rudi Margono ◽  
I Nyoman Nurjaya ◽  
Tunggul Anshari Setia Negara ◽  
Heru Hadi

Law Number 16 of 2009 concerning General Provisions and Tax Procedures (UU KUP), regulates administrative sanctions and criminal sanctions. The KUP Law method does not yet regulate how to save the loss of state revenue because it does not regulate the implementation of criminal fines, the legal implications of different decisions that cause legal uncertainty, injustice and have not provided benefits, especially in an effort to collect taxes. The purpose of this paper is to find out, analyze, and find the urgency of regulating criminal sanctions for the deprivation of assets in tax crime. This study is normative legal research with a legislation approach, historical approach, comparative law approach, conceptual approach, and case approach. The legal materials used are primary and secondary legal materials. Analysis of legal material is done with a descriptive perspective. The results of this study indicate that the inclusion of fine sanctions in the KUP Act turns out to lead to different interpretations resulting in legal uncertainty and does not provide economic benefits for the state in law enforcement, because the sanctions for fines are not complemented by implementing sanctions in the form of additional criminal sanctions in the form of confiscation of assets belonging to the defendant or an act (maatregel) in the form of requiring improvement of corporate governance in accordance with good corporate governance or placement of a legal company, where an economic crime is committed under a certain period of time, so that in the future the KUP Act, additional sanctions or actions to strengthen / complete in the future criminal sanctions for fines.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
Mikhalien Du Bois

In South African law, the substantive requirements for a patent may be scrutinised during infringement proceedings or revocation proceedings. Lack of novelty (or anticipation) is a ground for revocation of a patent but can also serve as a defense in an infringement matter. After a series of decisions by the Commissioner of Patents and the Supreme Court of Appeal on infringement and revocation matters relating to Merck’s Patent 98/10975 and its alleged infringement by Cipla (now Ascendis), the Constitutional Court was asked to deliberate the matter in Ascendis Animal Health (Pty) Limited v Merck Sharp Dohme Corporation and Others 2020 (1) SA 327 (CC). The main issue related to the principle of res judicata, and whether invalidity of a patent may be considered as a defense during infringement matters after the validity of the patent was already determined during revocation proceedings between the same parties. The decisions also considered whether each revocation ground constituted a separate issue or whether revocation is the issue for purposes of determining whether a matter is res judicata. A review of all the preceding decisions also indicate that the Supreme Court of Appeal may have developed the way in which lack of novelty is determined in South African law, but without explicitly acknowledging that the approach is different. The Constitutional Court’s evenly split decisions (per Khampepe J and Cameron J) indicate different approaches to reaching just and fair outcomes in patent matters. While Khampepe J’s decision focuses more on the need to remove invalid patents from the register, Cameron J’s decision focuses on preventing harm from piecemeal litigation.


2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 703-711
Author(s):  
Vega Christian Pratama ◽  
Louis Tappangan

This article aims to analyze the importance of the preliminary supervisory judges stipulated in the Draft Criminal Procedure Code to replace pretrial institutions regulated in the Criminal Procedure Code in the future. As for the preliminary Supervisory Judge, it was formed with the aim of improving pretrial institutions which are deemed not running properly at this time. The problem focuses on the legal consequences of the use of violence by the investigator against the suspect or witness and the importance of the Preliminary Examination Judge to be applied to criminal justice in Indonesia to address the problem of the use of force by investigators. In order to answer this problem, a theoretical reference is used that applies to the process of proof in criminal procedural law and uses a microeconomic analysis of criminal law to analyze how important the enforcement of the Preliminary Examination Judge in Indonesia is. The research method used in this article is the statue approach and conceptual approach. This study concludes that the enforcement of Preliminary Examination Judges needs to be reviewed again, because there are still many deficiencies contained in the Draft KUHAP which regulates Preliminary Examination Judges. Although on the one hand the Preliminary Examination Judge is very much needed to overcome the problem of violence by investigators in the investigation, on the other hand there are other things that need to be reviewed so that criminal justice in Indonesia can be better in the future.


Acta Comitas ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 452
Author(s):  
Yunita Mahendrawati H.P.

Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 49 / PUU-X / 2012 which cancels the phrase "with the approval of the MPD" resulting in the authority of the MPD stipulated in Article 66 paragraph (1) of Law No. 30 of 2004 concerning the Position of Notary (UUJN) resulting in the loss of MPD's authority to give approval to investigators, prosecutors or judges for judicial proceedings involving notary public. Then the article was the subject of a lawsuit to be petitioned for material testing at the Constitutional Court, which was then terminated in Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 22 / PUU-XVII / 2019. However, the ruling of the Constitutional Court's ruling gave rise to a ruling that was different from the previous ruling, which stated that "Article 66 paragraph (1) UUJNP does not contradict the 1945 Constitution". The purpose of this paper is to find out changes to the regulations of the position of the Notary public after Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 49 / PUU-X / 2012 and to assess the inconsistency of the Constitutional Court's Decision on the review of material in Article 66 UUJN. This research is a normative legal research using the law approach, conceptual approach and case approach. The analyzed legal materials are primary and secondary legal materials with descriptive, comparative, evaluative and argumentative analysis techniques. Amendment to the regulation of the Notary Public after Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 49 / PUU-X / 2012 which abolished the MPD's authority in giving approval, has been replaced by MKN as stipulated in Article 66 paragraph (1) of the UUJNP. Inconsistencies that occur in Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 49 / PUU-X / 2012 and Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 22 / PUU-XVII / 2019 in the case of material testing of Article 66, due to differences in the Constitutional Court's considerations which resulted in differences in ruling on the previous Decree declared contrary to the 1945 Constitution whereas the most recent Decision was stated not to contradict the 1945 Constitution. The legal implications of the inconsistency have resulted in legal uncertainty and decreased public confidence in the judiciary. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK) No. 49/PUU-X/2012 telah membatalkan frasa “dengan persetujuan Majelis Pengawas Daerah” Pada Pasal 66 ayat (1) Undang-Undang No. 30 Tahun 2004 tentang Jabatan Notaris (UUJN) mengakibatkan hilangnya kewenangan MPD yakni terkait pemberian persetujuan terkait proses peradilan oleh penyidik, penuntut umum, atau hakim. Namun dengan lahirnya Undang-Undang Nomor 2 Tahun 2014 tentang Perubahan Atas UUJN (UUJNP) kembali menghadirkan frasa yang pernah dibatalkan oleh putusan MK dengan nama badan yang berbeda yaitu “Majelis Kehormatan Notaris (MKN)” di pasal yang sama yang pernah dibatalkan oleh MK yakni Pasal 66 ayat (1). Kemudian pasal tersebut kembali menjadi pokok gugatan perkara untuk dimohonkan pengujian secara materiil di MK yang kemudian diputus dalam Putusan MK No. 22 /PUU-XVII/2019. Namun amar putusan MK ini memunculkan amar yang berbeda dengan putusan sebelumnya, yang menyatakan bahwa “Pasal 66 ayat (1) UUJNP tidak bertentangan dengan UUD 1945”. Adapun tujuan dari penulisan ini yakni untuk mengetahui perubahan peraturan jabatan Notaris pasca adanya Putusan MK No. 49/PUU-X/2012 dan untuk mengkaiji mengenai inkonsistensi Putusan MK terhadap pengujian materi pada Pasal 66 UUJN. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum normatif dengan menggunakan pendekatan undang-undang, pendekatan konseptual dan pendekatan kasus. Bahan hukum yang dianalisa berupa bahan hukum primer dan sekunder dengan teknik analisa deskriptif, komparatif, evaluative dan argumentatif. Perubahan pengaturan Notaris pasca Putusan MK No. 49/PUU-X/2012 yang menghapuskan kewenangan MPD dalam memberi persetujuan, telah digantikan oleh MKN yang tertuang dalam Pasal 66 ayat (1) UUJNP. Inkonsistensi yang terjadi dalam Putusan MK No. 49/PUU-X/2012 dan MK No. 22/PUU-XVII/2019 dalam hal pengujian materiil Pasal 66, disebabkan karena perbedaan pertimbangan MK yang mengakibatkan perbedaan amar pada Putusam sebelumnya dinyatakan bertentangan dengan UUD 1945 sedangkan pada Putusan terbaru dinyatakan tidak bertentangan dengan UUD 1945. Implikasi hukum akibat inkonsistensi tersebut mengakibatkan adanya ketidakpastian hukum dan menurunnya kepercayaan publik kepada peradilan.


2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-29
Author(s):  
Desi Ratnasari ◽  
Sahuri Lasmadi ◽  
Elly Sudarti

This article aims to identify and analyze the legal implications and analyze the regulation of public interest as a condition for implementing deponeering by the Attorney General for the sake of the public interest in the perspective of the development of criminal procedural law. This research is a legal research, obtained from statutory studies (statute approach), concept (conceptual approach), cases. The result of this research is that there is discrimination against equality before the law contained in Article 27 Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and can trigger misinterpretation by the Attorney General. Then in its implementation there is no clear regulation regarding the application of the opportunity principle related to the authority of the attorney general in the implementation of case waiver (deponeering) for the public interest in the Criminal Procedure Code.  Abstrak Artikel ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui dan menganalisis implikasi hukum serta menganalisis terhadap regulasi kepentingan umum sebagai syarat pelaksanaan pengesampingan perkara (deponeering) oleh Jaksa Agung demi kepentingan umum dalam prespektif perkembangan hukum acara pidana.  Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum, yang diperoleh dari studi perundang-undangan (statute approach), konsep (conceptual approach), kasus. Hasil dari penelitian ini adalah adanya diskriminatif terhadap equality before the law yang terdapat dalam Pasal 27 Ayat (1) Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945 dan dapat memicu salah tafsir oleh Jaksa Agung. Lalu di dalam pelaksanaannya belum terdapat regulasi yang jelas mengenai penerapan asas oportunitas yang berhubungan dengan kewenangan jaksa agung dalam pelaksanaan pengesampingan perkara (deponeering) demi kepentingan umum di dalam Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum acara Pidana (KUHAP). 


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document