Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"How should courts interpret the law? While all agree that courts must be objective, people differ sharply over what this demands in practice: fidelity to the text? To the will of the people? To certain moral ideals? In Judicial Review in an Objective Legal System, Tara Smith breaks through the false dichotomies inherent in dominant theories - various forms of originalism, living constitutionalism, and minimalism - to present a new approach to judicial review. She contends that we cannot assess judicial review in isolation from the larger enterprise of which it is a part. By providing careful clarification of both the function of the legal system as well as of objectivity itself, she produces a compelling, firmly grounded account of genuinely objective judicial review. Smith's innovative approach marks a welcome advance for anyone interested in legal objectivity and individual rights."

"Comparative scholarship on judicial review has paid a lot of attention to the causal impact of politics on judicial decision-making. However, the slower-moving, macro-social process through which judicial review influences societal conceptions of the law/politics relation is less well understood. Drawing on the political science literature on institutional change, The Politico-Legal Dynamics of Judicial Review tests a typological theory of the evolution of judicial review regimes - complexes of legitimating ideas about the law/politics relation. The theory posits that such regimes tend to conform to one of four main types - democratic or authoritarian legalism, or democratic or authoritarian instrumentalism. Through case studies of Australia, India, and Zimbabwe, and a comparative chapter analyzing ten additional societies, the book then explores how actually-existing judicial review regimes transition between these types. This process of ideational development, Roux concludes, is distinct both from the everyday business of constitutional politics and from changes to the formal constitution."

"Kedudukan hukum pemohon judicial review di Indonesia hanya perorangan warga negara Indonesia menyebabkan warga negara asing tidak dapat mengajukan judicial review, meskipun hak asasi manusia warga negara asing dirugikan atau dilangar dengan berlakunya perundang-undangan pelaksana. Oleh karena itu dalam penulisan ini dibahas, Kedudukan hukum pemohon dalam sistem pengujian peraturan perundang-undangan di Indonesia, Perbandingan kedudukan hukum pemohon warga negara asing dalam mengajukan judicial review di beberapa negara, kedudukan hukum pemohon warga negara asing dalam mengajukan judicial review di Indonesia. Untuk menjawab itu, digunakan metode penelitian hukum dengan pendekatan undang-undang, kasus, konsep dan perbandingan. Dari penelitian di peroleh hasil bahwa kedudukan hukum dalam mengajukan permohonan judicial review di Indonesia dapat dilihat melalui kualifikasi pemohon dan kualifikasi kerugian, kualifikasi pemohon adalah perorangan warga negara Indonesia, kesatuan masyarakat hukum adat, badan hukum publik dan privat serta lembaga negara dan kualifikasi kerugian terhadap hak-hak yang telah diatur dan dijamin dalam UUD 1945. Kedudukan hukum pemohon hanya perorangan warga negara Indonesia menyebabkan warga negara asing yang mengalami kerugian hak asasi manusia tidak dapat diterima oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi. Namun ada beberapa hakim konstitusi mengajukan pendapat berbeda yang pada intinya menyatakan bahwa pemohon warga negara asing seharusnya diberikan kedudukan hukum jika substandi permohonan judicial review berkaitan dengan hak asasi manusia yang tidak dapat dikurangi dalam keadaan apapun. Perbandingan kedudukan hukum pemohon judicial review di beberapa negara seperti Jerman, Mongolia, Ceko, Goergia, Hungaria, Austria, Korea Selatan, Africa Selatan, Rusia dan Amerika Serikat, yang tidak membatasi warga negara asing sebagai pemohon judicial review, bahkan beberapa pemohon warga negara asing yang diterima kedudukan hukum dan permohonan dalam oleh negara pembanding tersebut. Kedudukan hukum pemohon warga negara asing yang tidak diterima di Indonesia menyebabkan terjadinya pelangaran terhadap prinsip-prinsip negara hukum dan hak asasi manusia, yaitu hak diakui sebagai pribadi dihadapan hukum dan pengadilan dan hak persamaan dihadapan hukum dan pengadilan, dimana hak ini telah dijamin dalam UUD 1945. Dalil konstitusional mengenai pembatasan hak asasi ternyata tidak dapan menjamin oleh karena hak yang dilangar merupakan hak asasi manusia yang tidak dapat dibatasi dalam keadaan apapun. Sehingga perlu tangung jawab negara untuk memberikan kedudukan hukum melalui pembentukan peraturan yang baru dengan mencantumkan pemohon adalah setiap orang yang mengalami kerugian konstitusional sedangkan terhadap warga negara asing hanya pada kerugian yang termasuk dalam katagori non derogable rights sedangkan derogable rights tidak.

---

The legal standing of the applicant for judicial review in Indonesia is only an individual Indonesian citizen, causing foreign nationals to be unable to apply for a judicial review, even though the human rights of foreign nationals have been harmed or violated by the enactment of the implementing laws. Therefore, in this paper discussed, the legal position of the applicant in the system of testing the laws and regulations in Indonesia, the comparison of the legal position of the applicant for foreign nationals in filing a judicial review in several countries, the legal position of the applicant for a foreign citizen in filing a judicial review in Indonesia. To answer that, legal research methods are used with the approach of laws, cases, concepts and comparisons. From the research, it is found that the legal position in applying for a judicial review in Indonesia can be seen through the qualifications of the applicant and the qualifications for losses, the qualifications of the applicants are individual Indonesian citizens, indigenous peoples, public and private legal entities and state institutions and qualifications of loss to rights. Right that has been regulated and guaranteed in the 1945 Constitution. The legal standing of the applicant is only an individual Indonesian citizen, which means that foreign nationals who experience human rights losses cannot be accepted by the Constitutional Court. However, there were several constitutional judges who put forward a different opinion which basically stated that the foreign citizen applicant should be given a legal standing if the substance of the application for judicial review relates to human rights which cannot be reduced under any circumstances. Comparison of the legal standing of the applicants for judicial review in several countries, such as Germany, Mongolia, Czech, Goergia, Hungary, Austria, South Korea, South Africa, Russia and the United States, which do not limit foreign nationals as applicants for judicial review, even some applicants are foreign nationals the legal standing and application received by the comparable country. The legal standing of the applicant for foreign citizens who is not accepted in Indonesia causes violations of the principles of the rule of law and human rights, namely the right to be recognized as a person before the law and court and the right to equality before the law and court, where this right has been guaranteed in the 1945 Constitution. Constitutional arguments regarding the limitation of human rights are not guaranteed because the rights that are violated are human rights that cannot be limited under any circumstances. So it needs the responsibility of the state to provide a legal position through the formation of a new regulation by including the applicant is everyone who experiences a constitutional loss while foreigners only suffer losses which are included in the category of non derogable rights while derogable rights are not."

"The scheme of checks and balances in the process of legislation in various countries, experienced a shift after judical review accommodated. Legislation does not only involve exeecutive institutions and the parliament bbut also the judiciary. Judicial review is a channel for the expression of public dissent against the decision taken by the legislators. Through the authority of judical review, the Constitutional Court may overturn legislation. This is not because the Constutional Court is in a superior position but becausae judical review is an instrument of the checks and balances mechanism among institutions in the legislative process. Therefore, the presence of the Constitutional Court with powers of judical review should be understood in order to contribute to the democratization in the legislation process."

"Penelitian ini fokus terhadap Mahkamah Agung dalam melakukan pengujian peraturan perundang-undangan dibawah undang-undang (judicial review on the legality of regulation). Asas Contrarius Actus digunakan dalam pola putusan judicial review di Mahkamah Agung, sesuai dengan PERMA No 01 Tahun 2011 Pasal 8 Ayat (2) memiliki jangka waktu 90 hari dari putusan judicial review dan dinyatakan tidak ada kekuatan hukum jika tidak dilaksanakan. Dalam Proses eksekusi putusan yang bisa dilakukan dalam pengeksekusian dalam proses eksekusi putusan Mahkamah Agung Hal itu dapat berpotensi mengakibatkan proses tindak lanjut tidak ideal yang dilakukan Pejabat Tata Usaha Negara dalam menindak lanjuti putusan Mahkamah Agung dari norma yang sudah dibatalkan. Maka hal tersebut dapat mengakibatkan ketidakpastian hukum dari putusan judicial reviewMahkamah Agung terkait. Bentuk Penelitian yang digunakan adalah yuridis normatif dengan metode analisis kualitatif. Dalam konteks ini penulis juga melakukan analisis dengan metode perbandingan dengan beberapa negara dan mencari informasi penting dari narasumber yang penulis lakukan dengan mekanisme wawancara untuk memperkuat penelitian ini. Hasil penelitian ini merujuk terhadap eksekusi putusan judicial review yang masih kurang diterapkan secara ideal sehingga menyebabkan ketidakpastian hukum. Harusnya putusan judicial review di Mahkamah Agung dapat memiliki kekuatan hukum yang terikat atau berlaku final and binding sejak putusan dibacakan sehingga judicial review Mahkamah Agung dapat mengakibatkan harmonisasi dari Peraturan Perundang-undangan akan tercederai. Maka daripada hal itu, Pejabat Tata Usaha Negara yang melakukan eksekusi putusan dengan tidak ideal harus diberikan teguran dan sanksi yang dilaporkan kepada Kementerian Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia Republik Indonesia yang memiliki fungsi dalam menjaga harmonisasi produk Peraturan Perundang-undangan. Hal itu dilakukan agar tujuan dari hukum mengenai keadilan hukum, kepastian hukum, dan kemanfaatan hukum dapat tercapai dengan maksimal dan meminimalisir penyalahgunaan tindak lanjut putusan yang dilakukan oleh Pejabat Tata Usaha Negara yang membuat dan mengeluarkan produk Peraturan Perundang-undangan tersebut.

---

This research focuses on the Supreme Court in conducting judicial review on the legality of regulation. The Contrarius Actus principle is used in the pattern of judicial review decisions in the Supreme Court, in accordance with PERMA No. 01 of 2011 Article 8 Paragraph (2) which has a period of 90 days from the judicial review decision and is declared to have no legal force if it is not implemented. In the process of executing decisions that can be carried out in the process of executing decisions of the Supreme Court. This can potentially result in an imperfect follow-up process carried out by State Administrative Officials in following up on decisions of the Supreme Court from norms that have been canceled. So this can lead to legal uncertainty from the judicial review decision of the relevant Supreme Court. The form of research used is normative juridical with qualitative analysis methods. In this context the author also conducted an analysis using a comparative method with several countries and sought important information from sources which the author did with an interview mechanism to strengthen this research. The results of this study refer to the execution of judicial review decisions which are still not implemented ideally, causing legal uncertainty. The judicial review decision at the Supreme Court should have binding legal force or be final and binding since the decision was read so that there is legal certainty in it. Misuse in the follow-up process of the judicial review decision of the Supreme Court can result in harmonization of laws and regulations. Therefore, instead of that, State Administrative Officials who carry out decisions that are not ideal must be given a warning and sanctions that are reported to the Ministry of Law and Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia which has a function in maintaining the harmonization of Legislation and Regulation products. This is done so that the objectives of the law regarding legal justice, legal certainty, and legal benefits can be achieved maximally and minimize the misuse of follow-up decisions made by State Administrative Officials who make and issue the products of the Legislation."