scholarly journals «El caso BILDU» : continuidad y ruptura en la doctrina del Tribunal Constitucional sobre la ilegalización de formaciones políticas

2011 ◽  
pp. 555
Author(s):  
Mercedes Iglesias Bárez
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
High Court ◽  
The Supreme Court

The case is somewhat Bildu a break with the doctrine that the Constitutional Court has constructed about the outlawing of political parties. The control of political parties in the process of proclamation of candidates, the value of the condemnation of terrorism and the role to be played to the High Court in monitoring the decisions of the Supreme Court, are in part a new meaning in the controversial decision the Constitutional Court.El caso Bildu representa, en cierta forma, una ruptura con la doctrina que el Tribunal Constitucional ha construido acerca de la ilegalización de partidos políticos. El control de formaciones políticas en la fase de proclamación de candidatos, el valor de la condena del terrorismo o el papel que le corresponde desempeñar al Alto Tribunal en la fiscalización de las decisiones del Tribunal Supremo, tienen en parte un nuevo sentido en la controvertida decisión del Tribunal Constitucional.

Equity and certainty in contract law

Acta Juridica ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 141-176
Author(s):  
F Brand
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
High Court ◽  
Contractual Relationships ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Do So

The role of abstract values such as equity and fairness in our law of contract has been the subject of controversy for a number of years. In 2002 the Supreme Court of Appeal took the position that these values do not constitute self-standing grounds for interfering with contractual relationships. Despite this being consistently maintained by the SCA in a number of cases, some High Court judges deviated from this position on the basis that they were permitted to do so by some minority judgments and obiter dicta in the Constitutional Court. The uncertainty thus created has fortunately now been removed by the judgment of the Constitutional Court in Beadica v The Trustees for the Time being of the Oregon Trust.

scholarly journals PEMBUBARAN PARTAI POLITIK DALAM SISTEM KETATANEGARAAN INDONESIA

Jurnal Hukum ◽  
1970 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 612
Author(s):  
Widayati
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Political Party ◽  
District Court ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Members Of Parliament ◽  
The People ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Government

Indonesia is a sovereign country folk. One implementation of the sovereignty of the people is the election that followed by political parties for members of Parliament and members of parliament and individuals for DPD.Political parties are the main pillars of democracy. Establishment of political parties must meet the requirements in accordance with legislation. Terms of founding a political party regulated under Article 2 of Law No. 2 of 2008 on Political Parties.As the main pillar of democracy, political parties should be able to carry out its functions properly. There are some restrictions on political parties, among others, are prohibited from engaging in activities contrary to the Constitution of 1945 NRI and legislation; engage in activities that endanger the integrity and safety Homeland. If the ban is violated, then the government may ask the parties to the freezing of the District Court. If the parties do not accept the decision of freezing the District Court, it can be appealed to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the PN, then the Government may propose the dissolution of the parties to the Court.The procedure by which parties to the Court daitur dissolution under Article 68 paragraph (1) and (2) of Law No 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court. Constitutional Court's decision regarding the request for the dissolution of political parties must be decided upon within a period of 60 (sixty) days after pemoohonan recorded in the Register of Case Constitution.Keywords: Parati dissolution of political, constitutional systemIndonesia

scholarly journals Implikasi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Terhadap Pembubaran Partai Politik Di Indonesia

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 227-239
Author(s):  
Hasir Budiman Ritonga
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
Party Members ◽  
The Republic

Judicial power in Indonesia under the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia shall be exercised by the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court. One of the authority of the Constitutional Court according to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia is to decide the dissolution of political parties. The facts in the current Indonesian system of ketatanegaran no cases of political parties that were dissolved through the decision of the Constitutional Court, it's just that the problem is when the Constitutional Court uses its authority to break the dissolution of political parties there are things that are formal juridically there is no clear rules, such as the legal status of party members who are not directly involved in the violation committed by the party and the status of party members who hold the position of members of the legislature both at the center and in the regions. So for that must be resolved by emphasizing the certainty, justice and benefit in the decision of the constitutional court

scholarly journals KEPASTIAN HUKUM MENGENAI PERBEDAAN ANTARA PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH AGUNG DAN PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI TERKAIT PENCALONAN PERSEORANGAN PESERTA PEMILU ANGGOTA DPD

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rasji . ◽  
Cinthia .
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Court Ruling ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Law And Justice

Indonesia is a country based on the law (rechstaat) whose basis is stated in Article 1 Paragraph (3) of the UUD NRI 1945. The essential principles of the rule of law based on Article 24 Paragraph (1) of the UUD NRI 1945 are the guarantee of the organizer of the power of an independent judicial institution without interference from other parties to hold a court to uphold law and justice. Ideally, the results of the two institutions' decisions do not cause problems in society. However, the results of the decisions of the two institutions are still found differently regarding the issue of nominating individual participants in the members of the Regional Representatives Council. Any other way, the results of the Constitutional Court ruling prohibited members of the Regional Representatives Council who were still in the position of administrators of political parties. Meanwhile, the decision of the Supreme Court allows candidates for members of the Regional Representatives Council who are still in the position of managing political parties. In this study, the researcher will examine the differences between the Supreme Court's decision and the Constitutional Court's decision regarding the nomination of individual participants in the Regional Representatives Council by using normative legal methods and conducting interviews as supporting data. The results of the study revealed that based on the legal basis and authority of the institution, the verdict that had legal certainty regarding the nomination of individual participants in the Regional Representatives Council election was the decision of the Constitutional Court.

scholarly journals MODEL PENYELESAIAN PERSELISIHAN PARTAI POLITIK SECARA INTERNAL MAUPUN EKSTERNAL (The Model of Political Party Dispute Settlement Internally and Externally)

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 35
Author(s):  
Tri Cahya Indra Permana
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Political Party ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
The Other ◽  
District Court ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Sense Of Justice

Undang-Undang Parpol mengatur bahwa perselisihan Parpol diselesaikan secara internal oleh Mahkamah Partai atau sebutan lain daripada itu dan secara eksternal oleh Pengadilan Negeri dan Mahkamah Agung. Substansi perselisihan yang final dan mengikat di Mahkamah Partai adalah perselisihan kepengurusan, selebihnya dapat diajukan upaya hukum ke Pengadilan Negeri dan Mahkamah Agung. Di dalam praktek, pengaturan tersebut telah menjauhkan dari rasa keadilan, kepastian hukum dan kemanfaatan, oleh karenanya sebaiknya direvisi yang mana perselisihan PAW, pelanggaran terhadap hak anggota partai politik, penyalahgunaan wewenang,  pertanggungjawaban keuangan, dan atau keberatan terhadap keputusan partai politik (termasuk keputusan untuk tidak memutuskan terhadap sesuatu hal) final dan mengikat dengan Putusan MPP. Sedangkan perselisihan kepengurusan dapat diajukan upaya hukum ke Mahkamah Konstitusi. Political parties act stipulates that a political party dispute resolved internally by the Mahkamah Partai or other designation of that and externally resolved by the District Court and the Supreme Court. The dispute substance in Mahkamah Partai which is final and binding is about organization dispute, the other can be settled in District Court and the Supreme Court. In practice, that arrangement makes the decision apart from the sense of justice, legal certainty and utility. Therefore, these rules should be revised so that the regulation of PAW, violations of the rights of members of political parties, abuse of authority, financial liability, or an objection to the decision of political parties (including the decision not to decide on something) is final and binding through Mahkamah Partai decision. While the organization disputes can be submitted to the Constitutional Court for legal action.

scholarly journals Kewenangan Ketua Mahkamah Agung Mengeluarkan Surat Keputusan Ketua Mahkamah Agung Nomor 73/KMA/HK.01/IX/2015 Perihal Penyumpahan Advokat

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 429-444
Author(s):  
Muttaqin Asyura ◽  
Faisal A. Rani ◽  
Ilyas Ismail
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
Government Official ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
High Court ◽  
Chief Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Uncertainty

Angka 6 Surat Keputusan Ketua Mahkamah Agung Nomor 73/KMA/HK.01/IX/2015 perihal Penyumpahan Advokat (SK KMA Penyumpahan Advokat) menimbulkan polemik hukum karena substansi materi keputusan tersebut memperluas Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi berkaitan dengan Organisasi Advokat yang dapat mengajukan penyumpahan Advokat di Pengadilan Tinggi. Terkait dengan hal tersebut apakah Ketua Mahkamah Agung memiliki kewenangan untuk mengeluarkan SK KMA Penyumpahan Advokat? Teori freies ermessen menekankan bahwa setiap pejabat pemerintahan memiliki kewenangan untuk membuat keputusan agar dapat berperan secara maksimal dalam melayani kepentingan masyarakat, namun keputusan yang dibuat harus sesuai dengan asas-asas umum pemerintahan yang baik. Berlakunya SK KMA Penyumpahan Advokat memperluas makna Organisasi Advokat yang telah diatur sebelumnya dalam  Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Ketidakpastian hukum yang ditimbulkan oleh keputusan pejabat pemerintahan bertentangan dengan asas-asas umum pemerintahan yang baik, sehingga dengan demikian, Ketua Mahkamah Agung tidak berwenang mengeluarkan SK KMA Penyumpahan Advokat untuk mengatur mengenai Organisasi Advokat yang dapat mengajukan sumpah di Pengadilan Tinggi.Clause 6 a Decree Number 73/KMA/HK.01/IX/2015 on the Oath of an Advocate leads to legal issues due to expanding the decision of the Constitutional Court regarding advocate organization that can submit an oath of an advocate in the high court. Based on that issue, Is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court authorized to issue a Decree Number 73/KMA/HK.01/IX/2015 on the Oath of an Advocate? Freies Ermessen’s theory states that every government official has authority to make a decree in order to serving public administration. But, the decree must be in accordance with the General  Principles of Proper Administration (GPPA). The enactment of the  Decree on the Oath of an Advocate leads to legal issues due to expanding the decision of the Constitutional Court. Legal uncertainty caused by the Decree is contrary to the General Principles of Proper Administration (GPPA). Therefore, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court  is not authorized to issue a Decree Number 73/KMA/HK.01/IX/2015 on The Oath of an Advocate to regulate an Advocate Organization that can submit an oath in a High Court.

scholarly journals DEFAMATION OF SCHOOL TEACHERS BY LEARNERS Le Roux v Dey 2011 3 SA 274 (CC)

Obiter ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
J Neethling ◽  
JM Potgieter
Keyword(s):  
Secondary School ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Sexual Activity ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
School Teachers ◽  
High Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Vice Principal ◽  
Court Of Appeal

In Le Roux v Dey a vice-principal at a well-known secondary school in Pretoria instituted two separate claims for sentimental damages under the actio iniuriarum for insult (infringement of dignity) and defamation (infringement of reputation) against three school learners. The defendants published manipulated pictures of the plaintiff and the principal of the school depicting them both naked and sitting alongside each other with their hands indicative of sexual activity or stimulation. The school crests were superimposed over their genital areas. The plaintiff succeeded with both claims in the High Court (Dey v Le Roux 2008-10-28 case no 21377/06 (GNP)) butthe Supreme Court of Appeal (Le Roux v Dey 2010 4 SA 210 (SCA)) held that the separate claim for insult was ill-founded because in assessing damages for defamation, the court should also take the plaintiff’s humiliation into account. The Supreme Court of Appeal nevertheless confirmed the trial court’s award of R45 000. The defendants appealed to the Constitutional Court.

scholarly journals Penyelesaian Sengketa Pilkada Setelah Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 97/PUU-XI/2013

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 447
Author(s):  
R. Nazriyah
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
High Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Direct Elections

The problem to be studied in this paper is which body has the authority to resolve election disputes after the decision of the Constitutional Court? What  are the considerations that the court overturned its own authority to resolve dispute elections? Based on the results of analysis it can be concluded that; first, based on the decision No. 97 / PUU-XI / 2013 of the Constitutional Court, it is considered that, “... the legislators are also able to determine that direct elections were not part of  the formal Election as mentioned in section 22E of the 1945 Constitution. So that the dispute of the result is determined as an additional authority of the Supreme Court .. . “The second, the most appropriate agency to handle election disputes is the Supreme Court, which then delegates to the High Court in each region. If litigants are not satisfied with the decision of the High Court, they may appeal to  the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Law No. 1 2015 About Election of governors, regents, and mayors, was handed over to the Constitutional Court (although temporary) to resolve the election disputes. Therefore, it is immediate to establish regulations particularly the governing competent institution to resolve election disputes.

Partidos políticos y grupos municipales: un debate no cerrado sobre sus relaciones jurídicas

2014 ◽  
pp. 225-250
Author(s):  
Iñaki LASAGABASTER HERRARTE
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Court Ruling ◽  
Local Autonomy ◽  
Supreme Court Ruling ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
El Alto ◽  
Political Groups

LABURPENA: Lan honek Konstituzio Auzitegiaren 10/2013 Epaia du aztergai. Epai horrek Auzitegi Gorenak emandakoa berresten du, zeinaren arabera organo konstituzional gorenak ez duen ezagutzen alderdi politikoen eta udal-taldeen arteko aldeari buruzko jurisprudentzia, finkatuta dagoena. Auzitegiek, lege-gaikuntzarik gabe, udal-taldeen erregulazioari eta existentziari buruzko erabakiak hartzea tokiko autonomiaren aurkakoa da. RESUMEN: En el trabajo se analiza la sentencia del Tribunal Constitucional 10/2013, que confirma la dictada por el Tribunal Supremo, precisando que el Alto órgano constitucional desconoce su jurisprudencia, ya consolidada, sobre la diferenciación entre partidos políticos y grupos municipales. La intervención de los tribunales, sin habilitación legal, resolviendo sobre la regulación y existencia de grupos municipales es contraria a la autonomía local. ABSTRACT: In this work, we analyze the Constitutional Court judgement 10/2013, which upholds the Supreme Court ruling specifying that the Higher Constitutional body does not know its case law, already well-established, about the distinction between political parties and municipal political groups. The intervention of courts, without legal authorization, solving the regulation and existence of municipal political groups is contrary to local autonomy.

DEKADENSI PEMILIHAN HAKIM AGUNG OLEH DPR RI

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-104
Author(s):  
Rustam Magun Pikahulan
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Good Governance ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Institutional Status ◽  
The Government

Abstract: The Plato's conception of the rule of law states that good governance is based on good law. The organization also spreads to the world of Supreme Court justices, the election caused a decadence to the institutional status of the House of Representatives as a people's representative in the government whose implementation was not in line with the decision of the Constitutional Court. Based on the decision of the Constitutional Court No.27/PUU-XI/2013 explains that the House of Representatives no longer has the authority to conduct due diligence and suitability (elect) to prospective Supreme Judges proposed by the Judicial Commission. The House of Representatives can only approve or disapprove candidates for Supreme Court Justices that have been submitted by the Judicial Commission. In addition, the proportion of proposed Supreme Court Justices from the judicial commission to the House of Representatives (DPR) has changed, whereas previously the Judicial Commission had to propose 3 (three) of each vacancy for the Justices, now it is only one of each vacant for Supreme Court Judges. by the Supreme Court. The House of Representatives no longer has the authority to conduct due diligence and suitability (elect) to prospective Supreme Judges proposed by the Judicial Commission. The House of Representatives can only "approve" or "disagree" the Supreme Judge candidates nominated by the Judicial Commission.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document