scholarly journals PASANG SURUT HUBUNGAN ANTARA MAHKAMAH AGUNG DENGAN KOMISI YUDISIAL DALAM SISTEM KETATANEGARAAN REPUBLIK INDONESIA

2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammad Fauzan
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Relationship

The relationship between the Supreme Court by the Judicial Commission in the Republic of Indonesia system is not harmonious, this is due to the first, the disharmony between the law on judicial power, including the law on Judicial Power, the law on the Supreme Court, the law on Constitutional Court and the law on the Judicial Commission. Both of the leadership character that exist in the Supreme Court and the Judicial Commission were too emphasizes in ego that one sector feel more superior than the others. To create a harmonious relationship between Supreme Court and Judicial Commission can be done by establishing intensive communication between both of them and by improvement in legislation. Keywords : relation, Supreme Court, Judicial Commission   

scholarly journals The Harmonization of Authority of Supreme Court, Constitution Court, and the Judicial Commission

FIAT JUSTISIA ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 45
Author(s):  
La Ode Angga La Ode Angga
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
The State ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Fifth Amendment ◽  
Absolute Power ◽  
Dead End ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Republic

The Harmonization of the Authority between Supreme Court (MA) institutions The Constitutional Court (MK) and Judicial Commission (KY) is a must. It is done by way of revision of the Law of the Supreme Court, MK and KY for the harmonization of authority. However, if the revision finds a dead end, then the fifth amendment (5) of the 1945 Constitution of the State of the Republic of Indonesia (UUDNRI 1945) is limited to be reconstructed by the provision of Article 24B paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution by affirming the authority of KY clear so that it is not considered to interfere with judicial power. The harmonization can be done by adding an institution that oversees the authority of the Constitutional Court by performing reconstruction in Article 24B paragraph (1) so that there is no more tendency of absolute power. The supervised judge is a judge of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court.  Keywords: Harmonization, Authority, Supreme Court, Constitutional Court, Judicial Commission.

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 Pengujian Peraturan Pemerintah Pengganti Undang-Undang

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali Marwan Hsb
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Government Regulation ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Form Of Government ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Republic

Article 24C Section (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia authorizes the Constitutional Court to reviewthe law against the constitution. However, when referring to the hierarchy of legislation, the law has the equal hierarchy with government regulation in lieu of law. It makes a question whether the Constitutional Court truly has the authority to review government regulation in lieu of law against the constitution? Based on the research in this paper, it was found that by the Constitutional Court Decision Number 138/PUU-VII/2009, the Constitutional Court stated that the authority to review government regulation in lieu of law under the authority of the Constitutional Court because the substance of government regulation in lieu of law is similar with the substance of law. So, the Constitutional Court has the authority to review a government regulation in lieu of law materially. Such decision is correct; the Constitutional Court has the authority to review a government regulation in lieu of law in material because the substance is similar with the law. While formally reviewing should be the authority of the Supreme Court due to government regulation in lieu of law formally is in the form of government regulation

scholarly journals Penerapan Asas Audi Alteram Et Partem Pada Perkara Judicial review Di Mahkamah Agung

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 37
Author(s):  
Asep Syarifuddin Hidayat
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Public ◽  
Trial Process ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Impact

Abstract.Article 13 paragraph 1 of Act Number 48 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power states that all court hearings are open to the public, unless the Act says otherwise. Therefore, a judicial review trial must be open to the public. If the trial process of the judicial review is carried out in a closed manner, it can be considered a legal defect, because it is contrary to Article 13 paragraph (3) of the Law. The Law of the Supreme Court is not regulated that the judicial review is closed, because in the judicial review there is a need for openness or principle of audiences of parties or litigants must be given the opportunity to provide information and express their opinions, including the defendant as the maker of Legislation invitation under the law, so that the impact of the decision will need to be involved.Keywords: Judicial Review, Audi Alteram Et Partem Principle, Supreme Court, Constitutional Court Abstrak.Pasal 13 ayat 1 Undang-Undang Nomor 48 Tahun 2009 tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman menyebutkan semua sidang pemeriksaan pengadilan terbuka untuk umum, kecuali Undang-Undang berkata lain. Oleh karena itu,  judicial review persidangan harus dilakukan terbuka untuk umum. Apabila proses persidangan judicial review ini dilakukan secara tertutup, maka dapat dinilai cacat hukum karena bertentangan dengan Pasal 13 ayat (3) Undang-Undang tersebut. Undang-Undang Mahkamah Agung pun tidak diatur bahwa persidangan judicial review bersifat tertutup, karena dalam judicial review perlu adanya keterbukaan atau asas audi alteram et partem atau pihak-pihak yang berperkara harus diberi kesempatan untuk memberikan keterangan dan menyampaikan pendapatnya termasuk pihak termohon sebagai  pembuat Peraturan Perundang-Undangan di bawah Undang-Undang sehingga akan terkena dampak putusan perlu dilibatkan.Kata Kunci: Judicial Review, Asas Audi Alteram Et Partem, Mahkamah Agung, Mahkamah Konstitusi.

scholarly journals Examine The Constitutionality Of Regulations Under Laws That Are Not Contrary To The Law But Contrary To The Constitution

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 104-113
Author(s):  
Aditya Yuli Sulistyawan ◽  
I Putu Eka Cakra
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Authority ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Laws And Regulations

Kewenangan untuk memeriksa UU terhadap Konstitusi dilakukan oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi dan pengujian hukum dan peraturan berdasarkan Undang-Undang tentang Hukum dilaksanakan oleh Mahkamah Agung sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 24 A paragraf 1 dan 24 C paragraf 1 Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945. Namun, dalam perumusan pasal a quo ternyata masih menyisakan masalah, yaitu belum mengatur mekanisme pengujian norma yang terkandung dalam undang-undang di bawah undang-undang jika ternyata tidak bertentangan dengan undang-undang tetapi bertentangan dengan konstitusi. Tulisan ini membahas pengujian norma-norma undang-undang melalui Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945 tentang kewenangan peradilan di casu a quo pasal 24 A ayat 1 dan 24 C ayat 1 Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945. Kata kunci: otoritas, hukum, konstitusi. Abstract The authority to examine the Law against the Constitution is carried out by the Constitutional Court and the testing of the laws and regulations under the Law on the Law is carried out by the Supreme Court as regulated in article 24 A paragraph 1 and 24 C paragraph 1 of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. However, in the formulation of the article a quo it turns out still leaves a problem, namely not yet regulating the norm testing mechanism contained in the legislation under the legislation if it turns out it is not contrary to the law but contrary to the constitution. This paper analyzes the testing of the norms of the legislation through the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia Republic IX concerning judicial authority in casu a quo article 24 A paragraph 1 and 24 C paragraph 1 of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. Keyword: authority, law, the constitution.

scholarly journals THE COMPARISON BETWEEN THE JUDICIAL COMMISSION OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA AND THE NETHERLANDS COUNCIL FOR THE JUDICIARY

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 40
Author(s):  
Suparto Suparto
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Code Of Ethics ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Personnel Administration

The purpose of this study is to analyze the position and authority of the Judicial Commission of the Republic of Indonesia and its comparison to the Netherlands Council for the Judiciary. This comparative study applied a normative juridical method. The data used in this study were secondary data. The collected data were then analyzed qualitatively. The results showed that Judicial Commission has an important position in judicial system in Indonesia so as structurally, its position is aligned with the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. Yet, functionally, its role is auxiliary to the judicial power institutions. Although the function of the Judicial Commission is related to judicial power, but the Judicial Commission is not an agent of judicial power, rather, it is an agency enforcing code of ethics of judges. Besides, the Judicial Commission is also not involved in the organization, personnel, administration and financial matters of judges. This condition is different from the Judicial Commission in European countries, such as the Netherlands. The Judicial Commission in the Netherlands (The Netherlands Council for the Judiciary) has an authority in the area of technical policy and policy making in the field of justice. The Netherlands Council for the Judiciary and other Judicial Commission in European countries generally have the authority in managing organization, budget and administration as well as in conducting promotions, transfers, and recruitments as well as imposing sanctions on judges. Thus, the Supreme Court only focuses on carrying out judicial functions and does not deal with administrative and judicial organization matters.�Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui dan memahami tentang kedudukan dan kewenangan Komisi Yudisial Republik Indonesia serta perbandingannya dengan Komisi Yudisial Belanda. Metode penelitian yang digunakan yaitu yuridis normatif dengan cara perbandingan (komparatif). Data yang digunakan adalah data sekunder sedangkan analisis data dilakukan secara kualitatif. Hasil penelitian yaitu bahwa kedudukan Komisi Yudisial sangat penting, sehinggasecara struktural kedudukannya diposisikan sederajat dengan Mahkamah Agung dan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Namun demikian� secara fungsionalperannya bersifat penunjang (auxiliary) terhadap lembaga kekuasaan kehakiman. Komisi Yudisial meskipun fungsinya terkait dengan kekuasaan kehakiman tetapi bukan� pelaku kekuasaan kehakiman, melainkan lembaga penegak norma etik (code of ethics) dari hakim. Selain itu Komisi Yudisial juga tidak terlibat dalam hal organisasi, personalia, administrasi dan keuangan para hakim. Hal ini berbeda dengan Komisi Yudisial yang ada di negara Eropa misalnya Belanda. Komisi Yudisial di Belanda (Netherland Council for Judiciary) memiliki kewenangan pada area kebijakan teknis dan pembuatan kebijakan pada bidang peradilan.Komisi Yudisial Belanda dan di Eropa pada umumnya mempunyai kewenangan dalam hal mengelola organisasi, anggaran dan administrasi peradilan termasuk dalam melakukan promosi, mutasi, rekruitmen dan memberikan sanksi terhadap hakim. Mahkamah Agung hanya fokus melaksanakan fungsi peradilan yaitu mengadili

scholarly journals KAJIAN HUKUM KEWENANGAN PENYELIDIKAN ANTARA KEPOLISIAN, KPK DALAM PEMBERANTASAN PIDANA KORUPSI DARI KELEMBAGAAN NEGARA

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sumiaty Adelina Hutabarat
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Law Enforcement Agencies ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right ◽  
National Police ◽  
The Relationship

<p>There are two law enforcement agencies combating corruption, namely the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) and the Police, having the same authority, but in implementing authority there are differences, for example in the application of laws that govern the two institutions.The problem that becomes the study of this research is how the problem of the existence of the KPK as an institution to eradicate corruption has the authority regulated in RI Law No. 30 of 2002 concerning the Corruption Eradication Commission, whose authority lies with the Police regulated in RI Law No. 2 of 2002 concerning the National Police of the Republic of Indonesia which refers to the Criminal Code The results of the study showed that the resolution of the dispute between the Police and the Corruption Eradication Commission in the investigation of corruption was carried out by coordinating the Corruption Eradication Commission and the Police in Corruption Criminal Investigations. Law number 30 of 2002 concerning the Corruption Eradication Commission regulates the relationship between the performance of the KPK and the Police regarding investigations, investigations and prosecutions.Settlement of authority disputes between the Police and the KPK should be the authority of the Supreme Court, due to judicial review under the Supreme Court Law. The right to test the law is the application of a balanced and balanced government. The Corruption Eradication Commission was formed by the Law 30/2002 whereas the Indonesian Police was formed by the 1945 Constitution, article 30 paragraph 4.</p><p><strong>Keywords : <em>Authority, investigation, KPK</em></strong></p><p><strong> </strong></p>

scholarly journals Kontroversi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Membatalkan Kewenangan Komisi Yudisial Melakukan Rekrutmen Terhadap Hakim

SASI ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 266
Author(s):  
Suparto Suparto
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Technical Aspect ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Judiciary Committee ◽  
Mutual Regulation ◽  
Implementation Guidelines ◽  
The Law ◽  
Selection Of

The Supreme Court conducted a selection of judges without the involvement of the Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee deemed the recruitment was violating the law since it was not involving them in the process. While the Supreme Court viewed that the implementation guidelines for the mutual regulation of the Judiciary Committee and Supreme Court was yet to be existed, while the need for fresh judges was deemed as urgent at that time. Based on that premise, the Supreme Court conducted the recruitment and appointment of judges, several supreme court judges and registrars were conducting a judicial review on the Law No. 49 of 2009, Law No. 50 of 2009, and Law No. 51 of 2009.The Constitutional Court granted their plea with Stipulation No. 43/PUU-XIII/2015.One of the points of considerations of the constitutional judges was the involvement of Judiciary Committee on the recruitment of judges was deemed to disrupt the independency of the Supreme Court. Actually, the involvement of the Judiciary Committee in the selection of judges will not intrude the independency of the judicial power or the judge itself. The independency of judges will be disrupted if the Judiciary Committee is intervening with the technical aspect of judicial power which includescross-examination, trial, and the verdict on a case.

scholarly journals INDONESIAN JUDICIAL POWER POST AMENDMENT

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-95
Author(s):  
Krisnadi Nasution
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Fundamental Change ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Authority ◽  
The Republic ◽  
New Institutions ◽  
In The Beginning

Post the amendment of the Republic of Indonesia constitution, judicial authority in Indonesia underwent a fundamental change. The amendment was made based on the mandate contained in the 1945 Constitution post the amendment. Through normative juridical studies, an analysis of these changes will be carried out. The method of approach is based on statutory regulations and conceptually, as well as comprehensive. Post the amendment of the Republic of  Indonesia Constitution, in the beginning, only the Supreme Court had power in the field of justice. Then developed with the formation of new institutions in the field of justice namely: the Constitutional Court and the Judicial Commission. Through these additions, it is expected that checks and balances will occur in the formation of laws and regulations and the implementation of judicial power.

scholarly journals Kemerdekaan Hakim Dan Kemandirian Kekuasaan Kehakima Dalam Konsep Negara Hukum

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-57
Author(s):  
Azwad Rachmat Hambali
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Laws And Regulations

Tujuan penelitian menganalisis kemerdekaan hakim dan kemandirian kehakiman dalam konsep negara hukum. Metode Penelitian menggunakan penelitian hukum normative, Hasil penelitian bahwa Kemerdekaan Hakim  dan kemandirian Kekuasaan Kehakiman sebagai  penjelmaan konsep Negara Hukum sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 1 ayat 3 Undang Undang Dasar Negara Republik indonesia Tahun 1945  (hasil amandemen) beserta beberapa peraturan perundang undangan yang terkait seperti Undang Undang Kekuasaan Kehakiman, Undang Undang Mahkamah Agung, Undang Undang Komisi Yudisial  serta ketetapan MPR yang merupakan rujukan dalam pelaksanan Kemerdekaan Hakim, dan kemandirian personal, kemandirian substantive ,kemandirian internal serta kemandirian institusi. Rekomendasi mewujudkan konsep Negara Hukum perlu ditata peraturan perundang undangan yang menjamin kemerdekaan Hakim dan Kemandirian Kekuasaan. The research objective is to analyze the independence of judges and the independence of the judiciary in the concept of a rule of law. The research method uses normative legal research. The results show that the independence of judges and the independence of the judicial power as the embodiment of the concept of the rule of law as regulated in Article 1 paragraph 3 of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (amendments) along with several related laws and regulations such as the Law Judicial Power, the Law on the Supreme Court, the Judicial Commission Law and the MPR decrees which are references in the implementation of Judges' Independence, and personal independence, substantive independence, internal independence and institutional independence. Recommendations to embody the concept of a rule of law need to put in place laws and regulations that guarantee the independence of judges and independence of power.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document