Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"The founding of a constitutional court is often an indication of a chosen path of constitutionalism and democracy. It is no coincidence that most of the constitutional courts in East and Southeast Asia were established at the same time as the transition of the countries concerned from authoritarianism to liberal constitutional democracy. This book is the first to provide systematic narratives and analysis of Asian experiences of constitutional courts and related developments, and to introduce comparative, historical and theoretical perspectives on these experiences, as well as debates on the relevant issues in countries that do not as yet have constitutional courts. This volume makes a significant contribution to the systematic and comparative study of constitutional courts, constitutional adjudication and constitutional developments in East and Southeast Asia and beyond."

"[ABSTRAKSkripsi ini membahas dua permasalahan: alasan mengapa Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia perlu memiliki kewenangan untuk mengadili perkara pengaduan konstitusional; dan bagaimana seharusnya mengatur penambahan kewenangan tersebut. Hasil penelitian ini adalah: Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia perlu mendapatkan kewenangan ini demi menjalankan prinsip negara hukum yang dianut Republik Indonesia, melindungi Hak Asasi Manusia, menegakkan supremasi konstitusi, menjalankan checks and balances, memenuhi esensi pendirian mahkamah konstitusi di dunia, menjalankan fungsi pengujian konstitusional secara utuh, dan secara empiris banyak kasus yang bersubstansi pengaduan konstitusional sudah diajukan ke Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia; dan penambahan kewenangan tersebut hanya bisa dilakukan dengan amandemen undang-undang dasar.

---

ABSTRACT

, This thesis mainly discusses two problems: the urgency of giving the

jurisdiction for constitutional court of Republic of Indonesia over constitutional

complaint; and how the jurisdiction is supposedly given. This thesis concludes

that: constitutional court should have jurisdiction over constitutional complaint in

order to implement the principles of ‘rule of law’, protect human rights, uphold

the supremacy of constitution, maintain checks and balances function, fulfill the

essence of establishing constitutional court, and completely implement the

function of constitutional review, and empirically there has been many cases in

constitutional court of Republic of Indonesia that contain constitutional complaint

substance; and the only way to give the jurisdiction to constitutional court of

Republic of Indonesia is to amend the constitution.]"

"Skripsi ini membahas dua permasalahan: alasan mengapa Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia perlu memiliki kewenangan untuk mengadili perkara pengaduan konstitusional; dan bagaimana seharusnya mengatur penambahan kewenangan tersebut. Hasil penelitian ini adalah: Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia perlu mendapatkan kewenangan ini demi menjalankan prinsip negara hukum yang dianut Republik Indonesia, melindungi Hak Asasi Manusia, menegakkan supremasi konstitusi, menjalankan checks and balances, memenuhi esensi pendirian mahkamah konstitusi di dunia, menjalankan fungsi pengujian konstitusional secara utuh, dan secara empiris banyak kasus yang bersubstansi pengaduan konstitusional sudah diajukan ke Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia; dan penambahan kewenangan tersebut hanya bisa dilakukan dengan amandemen undang-undang dasar.

---

This thesis mainly discusses two problems: the urgency of giving the jurisdiction for constitutional court of Republic of Indonesia over constitutional complaint; and how the jurisdiction is supposedly given. This thesis concludes that: constitutional court should have jurisdiction over constitutional complaint in order to implement the principles of ‘rule of law’, protect human rights, uphold the supremacy of constitution, maintain checks and balances function, fulfill the essence of establishing constitutional court, and completely implement the function of constitutional review, and empirically there has been many cases in constitutional court of Republic of Indonesia that contain constitutional complaint substance; and the only way to give the jurisdiction to constitutional court of Republic of Indonesia is to amend the constitution."

"ABSTRAKKewenangan pengujian konstitusionalitas Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia bersumber dari atribusi Pasal 24C ayat (1) UUD NRI Tahun 1945. Pengaturan dalam Konstitusi tersebut hanya menyebutkan Mahkamah Konstitusi berwenang mengadili pada tingkat pertama dan terakhir yang putusannya bersifat final untuk menguji undang-undang terhadap Undang-undang Dasar. Menurut teori hukum administrasi negara, penerima atribusi dapat menciptakan wewenang baru atau memperluas wewenang yang sudah ada. Pada praktiknya Mahkamah Konstitusi menafsirkan sendiri jangkauan kewenangannya dalam pengujian konstitusionalitas melalui setiap Putusannya. Selain kewenangan sebagai negative legislator, Mahkamah Konstitusi juga berwenang sebagai positive legislator, bahkan memperluas obyek pengujiannya. Pengaturan dalam Undang-undang Mahkamah Konstitusi sebagai peraturan pelaksana dari Pasal 24 C ayat (1) UUD NRI Tahun 1945 yang membatasi kewenangan Mahkamah Konstitusi sebatas negative legislator dan membatasi obyek pengujian konstitusionalitas menjadi tidak serta merta mengikat bagi Mahkamah Konstitusi. Dalam praktik pengujian konstitusionalitas dewasa ini, perluasan kewenangan peradilan konstitusi dari sebatas negative legislator menjadi positive legislator dan perluasan obyek pengujian menjadi kecenderungan yang umum terjadi diberbagai negara. Perluasan kewenangan peradilan konstitusi memiliki kecenderungan dapat mengambil alih fungsi legislatif dari pembentuk undang-undang. Keadaan ini disebut pathology pengujian konstitusional. Oleh karena itu dilakukan penelitian secara yuridis normatif untuk mengetahui bagaimanakah pengujian konstitusionalitas yang masih menjadi kewenangan peradilan konstitusi. Hasil penelitian berupa konsep pengujian konstitusional yang masih menjadi kewenangan peradilan konstitusi, akan digunakan untuk menganalisa praktik pengujian konstitusional yang dilakukan oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi di Indonesia. Pengujian konstitusionalitas yang dilaksanakan oleh Peradilan konstitusi dinyatakan masih dalam lingkup kewenangannya apabila memenuhi empat kriteria yaitu: 1).Melalui Proses Peradilan; 2).Secara Umum Berperan Sebagai Negative Legislator; 3).Dalam Keadaan Tertentu dan Batasan Materi Tertentu Sebagai Positive Legislator; dan 4). Materi muatan norma yang termasuk dalam kategori doktrin political question bukan Obyek Pengujian Konstitusionalitas. Praktik pengujian konstitusionalitas yang dilakukan Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia ada yang memenuhi empat kriteria tersebut sehingga masih berada dalam lingkup kewenangan peradilan konstitusi. Namun ada pula putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi yang tidak memenuhi empat kriteria kewenangan pengujian konstitusionalitas peradilan konstitusi. Putusan yang demikian memposisikan Mahkamah Konstitusi melampaui kewenangan peradilan konstitusi, sehingga memiliki kecenderungan untuk menjadi pathology karena mengambil alih fungsi legislatif dari pembentuk undang-undang.

---

ABSTRACT

The jurisdiction of the constitutional judicial review of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia came from the attribution of Article 24C paragraph (1) NRI Constitution of 1945. The setting in the Constitution mentions only Constitutional Court jurisdiction to hear at the first and last decision is final, the laws against the Constitution. According to the theory of administrative law, the beneficiary attribution can create new or expand existing jurisdiction. In practice the Constitutional Court to interpret its own range of jurisdiction over the constitutionality through each Decision. In addition to the jurisdiction as negative legislator, the Constitutional Court also authorized as a positive legislator, even extending the test object. The settings in the Law of the Constitutional Court as the implementing regulations of Article 24 C of paragraph (1) NRI Constitution of 1945 which limits the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court and limiting the extent of negative legislator constitutionality object becomes not necessarily binding on the Constitutional Court. In the practice of the constitutional judicial review of today, the expansion of the jurisdiction of the constitutional court be limited from a negative legislator to be a positive legislator and expansion of test objects become a trend that is common in many countries. The expansion of the jurisdiction of a constitutional court may have a tendency to take over the legislative functions of the legislators. This condition is called constitutional pathology testing. Therefore normative juridical research to determine how the constitutional judicial review of which is still under the jurisdiction of a constitutional court. The results of research in the form of concept constitutional judicial review is still the constitutional jurisdiction of the constitutional court, will be used to analyze the practice of constitutional judicial review carried out by the Constitutional Court in Indonesia. Judicial review carried out by the Constitution Court declared still within the scope of its jurisdiction if it meets four criteria: 1) Through the Judicial Proceedings; 2) .In General Role In Negative Legislator; 3) .In Specific Circumstances and Limitation of Certain Material For Positive Legislators; and 4). The substance of the norms included in the category of the political question doctrine is not Object Testing Constitutionality. Practice constitutional judicial review conducted Indonesian Constitutional Court there that meet these four criteria so that they are within the scope of jurisdiction of the constitutional court. But there is also a Constitutional Court ruling does not satisfy the four criteria of the jurisdiction of the constitutionality of the constitutional court. The verdict thus positioning the Constitutional Court exceeded the jurisdiction of the constitutional court, so it has a tendency to be a pathology due to take over the legislative functions of the legislators."

"ABSTRAKTesis ini membahas tentang gagasan pelembagaan constitutional question di Indonesia melalui perluasan kewenangan Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam menguji undang-undang terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah metode yuridis normatif dengan menyertakan pula pendekatan perbandingan di negara-negara yang telah mengadopsi lembaga constitutional question. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukan bahwa lembaga constitutional question itu dapat ditempatkan sebagai bagian dari kewenangan pengujian konstitusional yang telah dimiliki Mahkamah Konstitusi berdasarkan ketentuan Pasal 24C ayat 1 UUD 1945. Selain itu hasil penelitian ini juga menunjukan bahwa terdapat kebutuhan atau urgensi, baik dari segi teori maupun praktek untuk melembagakan mekanisme constitutional question di Mahkamah Konstitusi. Oleh sebab itu pada bagian akhir penelitian ini dikemukakan suatu kesimpulan dan rekomendasi bahwa lembaga constitutional question ini sangat perlu dan sangat prospektif untuk segera diterapkan di Indonesia. Caranya cukup dengan melakukan perubahan terhadap undang-undang tentang Mahkamah Konstitusi dengan mengatur dan memasukan mekanisme constitutional question ini ke dalam undang-undang yang dimaksud, tanpa harus mengadakan perubahan terhadap UUD 1945.

---

ABSTRACTThis thesis will discuss the concept of constitutional question institutionalization in Indonesia by expanding the Constitutional Court s constitutional review authority against the Constitution. The method used in this research is juridical normative, which includes a comparative approach within countries that have adopted the constitutional question institution. The research shows that the constitutional question institution can be placed as part of the Constitutional Court s constitutional review method based on Article 24C 1 1945 Constitution. Moreover, the research also shows that there is a need or urgency, in both theory and practice, to institutionalize the constitutional question mechanism in the Constitutional Court. Therefore, this research concludes that the constitutional question is inevitable, and that is recommended to be immediately adopted in Indonesia. One of the possible methods to implement the mechanism is through the Constitutional Court law revision, which includes the constitutional question mechanism, without amending the Constitution. "