scholarly journals Menimbang Kedudukan Majelis Kehormatan Mahkamah Konstitusi Setelah Terbitnya Undang-Undang Nomor 7 Tahun 2020

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 899
Author(s):  
Zuhad Aji Firmantoro
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
State Government ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Material Research ◽  
Representative Government ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
Constitutional State ◽  
The Supreme Court

AbstrakPenelitian ini membahas tentang penafsiran Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam pengujian Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 2011 tentang Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 24 Tahun 2003 tentang Mahkamah Konstitusi terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945 yang putusannya mengabulkan sebagian permohonan pemohon berupa perubahan terhadap komposisi anggota Majelis Kehormatan Mahkamah Konstitusi, yakni Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 49/PUU-IX/2011. Ada dua permasalahan yang diteliti dalam penelitian ini, yaitu Pertama, apakah masuknya unsur DPR, Pemerintah dan Mahkamah Agung bertentangan dengan Pasal 1 ayat (3) dan Pasal 24 ayat (1) dan ayat (2) UUD 1945? Kedua, apakah implikasi putusan pembatalan Pasal 27A ayat (2) huruf C, D, dan E terhadap mekanisme saling kontrol (chekcs and balance) antar cabang kekuasaan negara (eksekutif, legislatif dan yudikatif) di Indonesia? Metode penelitian yang digunakan yakni penelitian yuridis normatif dengan menggunakan pendekatan konseptual, selain itu, dikaji dengan studi kasus yang berkaitan dengan materi yang dikaji. Hasil dari penelitian ini adalah, pertama: berdasarkan kajian Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 49/PUU-IX/2011 yang mengabulkan sebagian permohonan pengujian Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 2011 tentang Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 24 Tahun 2003 tentang Mahkamah Konstitusi terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945, Mahkamah Konstitusi menyatakan bahwa pembuat undang-undang telah membahayakan kemerdekaan kekuasaan kehakiman sebagaimana diatur dalam pasal 1 ayat (3) dan Pasal 24 ayat (1) dan ayat (2) UUD 1945 dengan memasukan unsur Pemerintah, DPR dan Mahkamah Agung dalam keanggotaan Majelis Kehormatan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Kedua, Putusan tersebut berimplikasi pada keanggotaan Majelis Kehormatan Mahkamah Konstitusi yang terdiri dan terbatas atas 2 (dua) unsur yaitu Mahkamah Konstitusi dan Komisi Yudisial. Karena itu utusan Mahkamah Konstitusi tersebut dianggap telah berhasil menjaga berlakunya asas check and balance antar 3 (tiga) cabang kekuasaan (eksekutif, legislatif dan yudikatif) dalam sistem ketatanegaraan indonesia.AbstractThis research elaborates the Constitutional Court interpretation within Decision No. 49/PUU-IX/2011 on judicial review of Law No. 8 of 2011 on amendments of Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court which its decision has granted mostly the petitioner’s petitions to change the Honorary Council of the Constitutional Court members composition. There are at least two examined issues in this study, they are: Firstly, does the addition of elements House of Representative, Government and the Supreme Court contradict Article 1 paragraph (3) and Article 24 paragraph (1) and (2) of the 1945 Constitution? And secondly, what is the implication of the decision to repeal Article 27A paragraph (2) letters C, D, and E for check and balance between three branches of state government (executive, legislative and judicial) in Indonesia? This research is normative legal research that uses a conceptual approach, also reviewed with case studies related to material research. The results show; Firstly, based on the study to Indonesian Constitutional Court Decision No. 49/PUU-IX/2011 which accepted most of the petitioner’s petitions on judicial review of Law No. 8 of 2011, the Constitutional Court stated that the addition of elements House of Representative, Government and the Supreme Court as members in the Honorary Council of the Constitutional Court then legislators have endangered the freedom of judicial power as regulated Article 1 paragraph (3) and Article 24 paragraph (1) and (2) the 1945 Constitution. Secondly, this decision has an impact on the members of the Honorary Council of the Constitutional Court which only consists of two elements, namely the constitutional court and the judicial commission. Therefore, the Constitutional Court Decision is considered successful in keeping the principle of check and balance between three branches of state government in the Indonesian constitutional state system. 

IDEAS FOR STRENGTHENING SUPREME COURT JUDICIAL REVIEW AUTHORITY IN REVIEW OF REGIONAL REGULATIONS

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 505
Author(s):  
Muh Risnain
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Public ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Preliminary Examination ◽  
Legal Implications ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Procedures

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.

scholarly journals Diskursus Pembatalan Peraturan Daerah Pasca Putusan MK No. 137/PUU-XIII/2015 dan No. 56/PUU-XIV/2016

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 710
Author(s):  
Yuswanto Yuswanto ◽  
M. Yasin Al Arif
Keyword(s):  
Local Government ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Local Regulation ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Post Test

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis diskursus pembatalan Perda pasca dikeluarkannya putusan MK No. 137/PUU-XIII/2015 dan No. 56/PUU-XIV/2016 atas pengujian UU No. 23 Tahun 2014 terhadap UUD 1945 yang dibatasi dalam dua rumusan masalah. Pertama, bagaimana implementasi pengujian Perda pasca Putusan MK No. 137/PUU-XIII/2015 dan No. 56/PUU-XIV/2016?. Kedua, apakah dampak putusan MK No. 137/PUU-XIII/2015 dan No. 56/PUU-XIV/2016 terhadap perkembangan hukum pemerintah daerah? Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian normatif dengan menggunakan pendekatan perundang-undangan (statute approach) dan pendekatan kasus (case approach). Data yang digunakan adalah data sekunder yang berupa bahan hukum primer, bahan hukum sekunder dan bahan hukum tersier. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa: pertama, pasca putusan MK pengujian Perda hanya dilakukan oleh sebuah lembaga yudisial melalui judicial review di Mahkamah Agung. Kedua, terdapat dua dampak penting atas dikeluarkannya putusan MK, pertama, dengan dibatalkannya Pasal 251 UU No. 23 Tahun 2014 maka hal ini mengakhiri dualisme pengujian Perda, karena Menteri tidak dapat lagi melakukan executive review. Kedua, putusan MK o. 137/PUU-XIII/2015 dan No. 56/PUU-XIV/2016 tidak menghapuskan pengawasan Pusat terhadap Perda karena masih dapat dilakukan pengawasan preventif melalui executive preview.This study aimed to analyze the discourse of cancellation after the issuance of local regulations following the Constitutional Court decision No. 137/PUU-XIII/2015 and No. 56/PUU-XIV/2016 on judicial review of Law No. 23 2014 towards the 1945 Constitution which are restricted in two formulation of the problem. First, how is the implementation of a post-test Constitutional Court Regulation No. 137/PUU-XIII/2015 and No. 56/PUU-XIV/2016? Second, what are the effects of the Constitutional Court decision No. 137/PUU-XIII/2015 and No. 56/PUU-XIV/2016 on the development of the local government law? This study is a normative with statute approach and case approach. The data used was secondary data in the form of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. The results showed that: firstly, the following decision of the Constitutional Court about regional regulations review can only be conducted by a judicial body through a judicial review in the Supreme Court. Secondly, there are two important effects on the issuance of the decision of the Constitutional Court, first, by the cancellation of Article 251 of Law No. 23 year 2014 then the duality of local regulation testing is ended, because the Minister can no longer perform executive review. Second, the decision of the Constitutional Court No. 137/PUU-XIII/2015 and No. 56/PUU-XIV/2016 does not abolish the supervision of the Center Government because they do preventive supervision through executive preview.

DISSENTING OPINION PUTUSAN SENGKETA MEREK PIERRE CARDIN INDONESIA MELAWAN PIERRE CARDIN PERANCIS DALAM KAJIAN HUKUM ISLAM: Studi Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 557 K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2015

JURISDICTIE ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 91
Author(s):  
Masrifatun Mahmudah
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Bad Faith ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
Trademark Law ◽  
The Supreme Court

<p>This article intents to examine the dissenting opinion in the judges consideration on the Supreme Court Decision No. 557 K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2015. This article is normative research with statute approach dan conceptual approach. The legal material on this research consist of primery legal materials namely Law No. 15 of 2001 on Trademark and Supreme Court Decision No. 557 K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2015, while the secondary legal materials are books, journals, research related to trademarks. The judge decide to reject the application of Pierre Cardin because the petition of Pierre Cardin has passed a period of five years from the registration of Pierre Cardin Indonesia. However, the conclusion of this study revealed that Pierre Cardin entitled to be protected because it is a well-known mark. Finally, Pierre Cardin Indonesia has violeted the terms of article 4 jo article 6 paragraph (1) letter b of Trademark Law because he has a bad faith and had imitated the well-known mark.</p>

scholarly journals MODEL PENGUJIAN PERATURAN PERUNDANG-UNDANGAN SATU ATAP MELALUI MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 247
Author(s):  
Sholahuddin Al-Fatih
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Regulatory Testing ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
New Ideas ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Bureaucratic Reform

Post-reform of the role of judicial institution is run by two institutions namely the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court. The duties and authorities of the two institutions are regulated in the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia 1945 and the act that addresses the three institutions more specifically. Several powers possessed by the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, one of them is the authority to judicial review. The Constitutional Court is authorized to review the act on the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia 1945, while the Supreme Court is authorized to review under the Act on the above legislation.The unfairness of the regulatory testing function is feared to trigger bureaucratic inefficiency. Based on data released by the Supreme Court Clerk, it was recorded during 2016 that the Supreme Court received 18,514 cases, including the Hak Uji Materi (HUM) subject to legislation under the Act. While the number of cases of judicial review of the Constitutional Court in 2016-2017 amounted to only 332 cases. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct a bureaucratic reform and provide new ideas related to the model of one court of judicial review in Indonesia. So that in this paper will be discussed deeply about problematic of judicial review in Indonesia and the authority of the Constitutional Court to review the act under one roof with SIJURI mechanism.

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

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

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

scholarly journals 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 Filling the Hole in Indonesia’s Constitutional System: Constitutional Courts and the Review of Regulations in a Split Jurisdiction

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 27
Author(s):  
Tim Lindsey
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Constitutional Review ◽  
The Real ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional System ◽  
Do So

The Indonesian constitutional system contains a serious flaw that means that the constitutionality of a large number of laws cannot be determined by any court. Although the jurisdiction for the judicial review of laws is split between the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court, neither can review the constitutionality of subordinate regulations. This is problematic because in Indonesia the real substance of statutes is often found in implementing regulations, of which there are very many. This paper argues that that is open to the Constitutional Court to reconsider its position on review of regulations in order to remedy this problem. It could do so by interpreting its power of judicial review of statutes to extend to laws below the level of statutes. The paper begins with a brief account of how Indonesia came to have a system of judicial constitutional review that is restricted to statutes. It then examines the experience of South Korea’s Constitutional Court, a court in an Asian civil law country with a split jurisdiction for judicial review of laws like Indonesia’s. Despite controversy, this court has been able to interpret its powers to constitutionally invalidate statutes in such a way as to extend them to subordinate regulations as well. This paper argues that Indonesia’s Constitutional Court should follow South Korea’s example, in order to prevent the possibility of constitutionalism being subverted by unconstitutional subordinate regulations.

scholarly journals Juridical Analysis of the Decision of the Constitutional Court Number: 69 / PUU-XIII / 2015 on Article 29 Law Number 1 of 1974 Concerning Marriage

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (5) ◽  
pp. 720
Author(s):  
Yusri Yusri ◽  
Yaswirman Yaswirman ◽  
Neneng Oktarina
Keyword(s):  
Decision Analysis ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Married Couples ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Personal Property ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Shared Property ◽  
Legal Marriage ◽  
Joint Property

Indonesia as a legal state, the presence of law in a country aims to guarantee life to protect the interests of citizens. In the Indonesian government system there are several branches of power, namely the legislative, executive and judiciary branches, the judicial power branches are the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court's authority is contained in Article 24 C paragraph (1) and (2) adjudicating at the first and last level whose decision is final to review the Law on the Constitution. Marriage agreement is a form of agreement that regulates assets in marriage and others. A marriage agreement is also an agreement which can affect other regulations. So with the regulation of the marriage agreement in Article 29 paragraph (1) prior to the lawsuit for judicial review to the Constitutional Court stating that the marriage agreement was made at the time, and before the marriage took place, this is what prevents many married couples from different citizens who previously were not have a marriage agreement while their interests require a marriage agreement. The decision analysis can be concluded that the Urgency of the marriage agreement in its decision No.69 / PUU-XIII / 2015 states that the importance of the marriage agreement is related to the position of shared property so that there is a separation of husband's assets with the wife's assets both regarding their respective belongings and the assets that belong to each other obtained during the marriage known as joint property. Whereas the assets obtained before their marriage period together are known as inheritance or personal property obtained after the marriage period which is usually referred to as acquisition assets. Due to the legal marriage agreement before MK Decision Number 69 / PUU-XIII / 2015, Indonesian citizens who carry out marriages mixed and does not make a marriage agreement, the Indonesian citizen may not have immovable property in the form of ownership or building rights.

PENJARA TERHADAP DOKTER DALAM PERSPEKTIF MENGIKATNYA PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI DAN PEMIDANAAN INTEGRATIF

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 59
Author(s):  
Warih Anjari
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Medical Profession ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Court Ruling ◽  
Binding Force ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Negative Impacts ◽  
Sentencing Theory

ABSTRAKKekuatan mengikat putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi bersifat final dan mengikat. Namun Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 4/PUU-V/2007 tidak ditaati oleh Putusan Nomor 1110 K/Pid.Sus/2012. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi telah menganulir ancaman pidana penjara dalam Pasal 75 ayat (1), Pasal 76, dan Pasal 79 Undang-Undang Nomor 29 Tahun 2004 tentang Praktik Kedokteran. Putusan Mahkamah Agung tetap menjatuhkan pidana penjara terhadap dokter yang melanggar pasal tersebut. Kondisi ini menimbulkan ketidaksesuaian antara kekuatan mengikat putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi dan tujuan penjatuhan pidana yang integratif berdasarkan Pancasila. Masalah dalam tulisan ini adalah bagaimanakah implikasi Putusan Nomor 1110 K/Pid.Sus/2012 dikaitkan dengan kekuatan mengikat Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi? Dan bagaimanakah implikasi penjatuhan pidana penjara bagi dokter yang tercantum dalam Putusan Nomor 1110 K/ Pid.Sus/2012 dikaitkan dengan teori tujuan pemidanaan integratif? Metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam tulisan ini adalah metode penelitian yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan kasus. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi memiliki sifat erga ormes sehingga harus diikuti oleh Mahkamah Agung. Pidana penjara terhadap dokter yang tidak menggunakan izin praktik tidak dapat mencapai tujuan pemidanaan integratif. Akibatnya pelayanan kesehatan bagi masyarakat tidak terlayani, dan merugikan profesi dokter. Kesimpulannya adalah putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi tidak mempunyai kekuatan mengikat sehingga menjadi tidak efektif dan tujuan pemidanaan integratif berdasarkan Pancasila tidak tercapai.Kata kunci: pidana penjara, kekuatan putusan, tujuan pemidanaan integratif.ABSTRACTThe binding force of the Constitutional Court ruling is final. However, the Supreme Court Decision Number 1110 K/Pid.Sus/2012 does not abide by the Constitutional Court Decision Number 4/PUU-V/2007. The Constitutional Court Decision has annulled the imprisonment penalties in Article 75 paragraph (1), Article 76, Article 79 of Law Number 29 of 2004 concerning Medical Practices. The Supreme Court in its decision imposed the sanction of imprisonment on the doctors violating the aforementioned articles. This condition lead to such a discrepancy between the final and binding decision of the Constitutional Court and the integrated purposes of sentencing under Pancasila. Formulation of the problems in this analysis meets some points on how the implication of the Supreme Court Decision Number 1110 K/Pid.Sus/2012 regarding the binding force of the Constitutional Court Decision; and how the implication of the imposition of imprisonment sanction for a list of doctors stated in the Supreme Court Decision Number 1110 K/Pid.Sus/2012 in terms of integrated objective of sentencing theory. The research method is a normative juridical by case-based approach. The nature of the decision of the Constitutional Court is erga omnes, that obliges the Supreme Court to act upon. The sanction of imprisonment against the doctors with no consent practices cannot reach the integrated purpose of sentencing. As a consequence, the health services to communities are abandoned and this bring negative impacts on medical profession. To be brief, the decision of the Constitutional Court is considered futile with no binding force, accordingly the integrated purpose of sentencing under Pancasila could not be achieved.Keywords: imprisonment, binding force of ruling, integrated purpose of sentencing.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document