Articles

Found 4 Documents
Search
Journal : Jurnal Konstitusi

Penataan Kelembagaan Pengujian Norma Hukum di Indonesia Lailam, Tanto
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol 15, No 1 (2018)
Publisher : Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31078/jk15110

Abstract

Artikel ini membahas tentang penataan kelembagaan pengujian norma hukum di Indonesia, yang diawali dengan pembahasan problematika kelembagaan dan praktik pengujian norma hukum saat ini dan gagasan penataaan lembaga kedepan. Hasil kajian menunjukkan bahwa beberapa persoalan, meliputi (1) kelembagaan yang tidak ideal dan tidak sesuai dengan checks and balances system, hal ini terbukti banyaknya lembaga yang terlibat dalam pengujian norma, yakni MK, MA, dan Mendagri–Gubernur (Wakil Pemerintah Pusat); (2) persoalan objek pengujian yang tidak memiliki batasan yang jelas; (3) dalam praktik, persoalan tolok ukur pengujian terjadi kerumitan, terutama dalam penggunaan tolok ukur dalam menilai pertentangan norma hukum. Gagasan penataan kelembagaan ini di desain untuk kelembagaan satu atap pada MK, yang didasari argumentasi bahwa: MK sebagai pengawal Pancasila dan UUD 1945, dalam rangka penataan kelembagaan yang berbasis pada mekanisme checks and balances system, mewujudkan hierarkisitas peraturan perundang-undangan yang berkelanjutan, implementasi pengujian formil dalam praktik pengujian peraturan perundang-undangan di bawah undang-undang, penataan regulasi menjadi lebih tersistem, pengujian produk hukum tertentu merupakan pintu masuk untuk melihat semua persoalan pertentangan normanya pada setiap hierarki. Pada sisi yang lain, objek dalam sistem pengujian peraturan perundang-undangan juga belum terintegrasi menurut konstitusi dan belum mengarah pada penataan sistem heirarki norma hukum dan upaya harmonisasi norma hukum. Sistem konstitusi dengan paradigma “the supreme law of the land” mengharuskan seluruh peraturan dibawahnya harus bersumber dan tidak boleh bertentangan, dengan berpijak pada prinsip “tidak boleh satu detik pun ada peraturan perundang-undangan yang berpotensi melanggar konstitusi tanpa bisa diluruskan atau diuji melalui pengujian yudisial”.This article is discussed the institutional arrangement of regulation reviews in Indonesia. It’s begins with a discussion of the institutional problems and practice of regulations review and the design of institutional arrangement in the future. The results of the study shows several issues including: (1) institutions which are not ideal and contradicted with checks and balances system, it’s proofed by amount of institutions has authority about the functions, namely: Judicial review (Constitutional Court, Supreme Court), and Executive Review (Minister of Home Affairs and Governor; (2) the object of review doesn’t clear boundaries; (3) in practice, the problems of standard reviews is complicated, especially in the use of judging standard in the conflict of legal norm. The idea of institutional arrangement is designed for one institutionalization at the Constitutional Court, which is based on the argument: The Constitutional Court as the guardian of the Pancasila (ideology of state) and the 1945 Constitution, in the framework of institutional arrangement based on checks and balances system, realizing the sustainable in the heirarchy of regulation, in practice of formal review to reviewing regulations under a law, arrangements of regulations more systematic and comprehsnsive, regulations review is the entrance to see all the issues of it’s conficting in each hierarchy. On the other hand, the object in the system of regulation reviews is also not integrated according by the constitution, and it’s not in accordance with the arrangement system in hierarchy of the regulation and efforts to harmonize the legal norms. The constitutional system with the “supreme law of the land” paradigm requires that all the regulations below should be sourced and not be contradictions, with the principle of “no regulations may be conflict againts the constitution without judicial review.
Pro-Kontra Kewenangan Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam Menguji Undang-Undang yang Mengatur Eksistensinya Lailam, Tanto
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol 12, No 4 (2015)
Publisher : Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31078/jk1247

Abstract

The Pro’s – Con’s of the Constitutional Court in the review of law in a regulated of the authority, since, it was a conflicting of procedural principles between “ius curia novit” with “nemo judex idoneus in propria causa”. Morever, the background by implication of Constitutional Court decisions, sometimes Constitutional Court making a “rule breaking”,  for examples: nullify of some of law if had reduction of  the authority, addition of constitutional authority to review of law before the 1945 Constitution amendment, additional authority to review of Government Regulation in lieu of law, and used non-constitution as a standard in the formal review, and others. On the other hand, the Constitutional Court also sometimes to choose a   legal logic doesn’t precise and anti-accountability principle. The Conflicts of the procedural principles can  be  resolved  by  understanding  philosophy  of  purposes of law (justice value, legal certainly, utility principle), so that, the Court will have been prioritizing to “ius curia novit” principle and it ignored “nemo judex idoneus  in propria causa”principle, it is intended that the enforcement of the constitution (values) and the state of the Indonesian rule of law, as well as for the Court to aims decided of constitutional issues and to aim the protection of constitutional rights.
Konstruksi Pertentangan Norma Hukum dalam Skema Pengujian Undang-Undang Lailam, Tanto
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol 11, No 1 (2014)
Publisher : Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31078/jk%x

Abstract

The study elaborated on the construction of “conflict of legal norms” in constitutional review scheme. There are eleven problems as result of this study, which include: The ideology of the state “Pancasila” as a standard review of “conflict of legal norms” act against 1945 constitution; Constitutional court has a review of act passed before and after 1945 Constitution amendment with standard of 1945 constitution; 1945 constitution is “the living constitution” for the enforcing of law and justice; Constitutional court has authority to review of act against 1945 constitution by vertical and horizontal perspective; enforceability aspect of constitutional review is a part of material review, not formal review; the meaning of “conflict of legal norms” must be comprehend elaborated in the decisions to enforcing of law and justice; Constitutional Court does not used priority of the original intent interpretation and remained unfulfilled of other model interpretation if original intent interpretation caused ineffectiveness of constitution; non constitution be permitted for the formal review, but in material review is not implement; “nemo judex idoneus in propria causa” of procedural law principle can remained unfulfilled by “ius curia novit” principle to promote of the 1945 constitution; the formal review of “conflict of legal norms” can remained unfulfilled by utility principle to priority of legal substance; the retroactive decision caused legal  uncertainly.
Open Legal Policy dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi dan Pembentukan Undang-Undang Satriawan, Iwan; Lailam, Tanto
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol 16, No 3 (2019)
Publisher : Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31078/jk1636

Abstract

Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 46/PUU-XIV/2016 yang menolak perluasan makna zina yang ada dalam Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana menjadi topik yang ramai diperdebatkan. Sebagian masyarakat berpendapat bahwa seharusnya Mahkamah Konstitusi berani melakukan terobosan hukum dalam isu yang sangat penting tersebut. Namun, Hakim Mahkamah Konstitusi berpendapat perluasan makna zina tersebut bukan ranah kewenangan mereka. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengkaji lebih jauh argumentasi hukum (ratio decidendi) putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi yang bersifat open legal policy dan bagaimana implikasinya terhadap pembentukan peraturan perundang-undangan di Indonesia. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian kepustakaan dengan pendekatan undang-undang dan studi kasus terhadap beberapa putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi yang mengandung argumentasi open legal policy. Secara konseptual penelitian ini juga akan membahas bagaimana implikasi putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi yang mengandung open legal policy tersebut terhadap sistem legislasi nasional. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa pertama, konsepsi open legal policy dalam putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi belum memiliki batasan yang jelas sehingga pengertian positive legislator dan negative legislator sering dikacaukan dalam praktik pembentukan dan pengujian undang-undang. Kedua, putusan yang bersifat open legal policy tersebut juga menunjukkan bahwa di antara hakim Mahkamah Konstitusi telah terjadi tarik menarik penggunaan paradigma judicial activism dan judicial restraints sehingga menimbulkan ketidakpastian hukum di tengah masyarakat. Penelitian ini merekemomendasikan perlunya kajian yang lebih mendalam tentang disain open legal policy dalam putusan Mahkamah Konsitusi dan sistem legislasi nasional Indonesia.The Constitutional Court Decision No. 46/PUU/XIV/2016 which rejected the petition of petitioners to broaden the meaning of zina (fornication) in the Criminal Code of Indonesia has been becoming an interesting issue to be discussed. Some argue that the Constitutional Court must use its authority to conduct a break-through in responding the crucial legal issue. On the other hand, the Court asserted that widening the meaning of zina in the Criminal Code of Indonesia is not its authority. The research aims at discussing further the ratio decidendi of the Constitutional Court Decision which contains the element of open legal policy and its implication to national legislation system. The research is a normative legal research which uses statute approach and case law approach. The result of research shows that firstly, the concept of open legal policy in the Constitutional Court decisions does not have a clear limitation which implies uncertainty of its implementation in the Court decisions and the national legislation system. Secondly, the Decision of the Constitutional Court with open legal policy also shows that on one hand, there is a trend of using judicial activism among the constitutional judges. On the other hand, some constitutional judges also use judicial restraint approach as their reasons which results uncertainty of law in Court decision. The research recommends that there should be a further study on design model of open legal policy in the Constitutional Court decisions and its implication to national legislation system.