[
ABSTRAKKekuasaan dan kewenangan Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat (DPR) yang kuat
akibat perubahan UUD 1945 dapat dilihat dalam desain skema keterlibatan DPR pada
pengisian sejumlah jabatan publik yang terbilang strategis. Dalam perubahan UUD
1945 dikenal 3 (tiga) bentuk pengangkatan pejabat publik yang melibatkan DPR,
yakni melalui pertimbangan, persetujuan dan pemilihan. Pada awalnya urgensi suatu
pengangkatan pejabat publik memerlukan campur tangan DPR karena merupakan
bagian dari varian fungsi pengawasan DPR di samping tentunya bagian dari fungsi
checks and balances atas kewenangan presiden. Hal yang menjadi perdebatan adalah
ketika kewenangan dan kekuasaan DPR dalam seleksi pengisian pejabat publik
terjadi penyimpangan akibat tidak transparan dan kredibel dalam melakukan proses
pengisian seleksi pejabat publik.
Penelitian ini akan memfokuskan pada analisis terhadap kewenangan DPR
dalam seleksi pengisian pejabat publik yang diberikan oleh UUD 1945. Di samping
itu juga menganalisa tentang putusan perkara Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 27/PUUXII/
2013 tentang pengujian terhadap pemilihan Hakim Agung MA (Mahkamah
Agung) dan putusan nomor 16/PUU-XII/2014 tentang pengujian terhadap pemilihan
anggota Komisi Yudisial (KY) dan anggota Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi (KPK).
Dimana dalam putusan pemilihan Hakim Agung MA dan anggota KY itu
mengembalikan kewenangan DPR sebatas hanya menyetujui atau tidak menyetujui
para calon Hakim Agung MA dan anggota KY. Penelitian ini juga melakukan
perbandingan pengisian pejabat publik dengan Negara Amerika Serikat, Korea
Selatan dan Filipina. Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan yuridis normatif,
dengan analisis data deskriptif kualitatif dan komparatif.
ABSTRACTThe strong power and authority of the House of Representatives (DPR) due to
the amendment of the Constitution of Indonesia year 1945 (UUD 1945) can be seen
in the design of the House of Representative?s involvement scheme in the election of
several strategic public position. In the amendment of UUD 1945 there are three (3)
forms the appointment of public officials involving the DPR, through the
consideration, approval, and election. At first, the urgency of the appointment of
public officials requires the intervention of House of Representative as part of a
variant of the House supervision functions in addition to the checks and balances
function on the authority of the president. The debate arises when there is deviation in
the authority and power of the House of Representatives in the election of public
officials due to non-transparent and credible process of filling the election of public
officials.
This study will focus on the analysis of the authority of the House of
Representatives in the selection of public officials granted by the Constitution of
Indonesia year 1945. In addition, this study also analyzes the decision of the
Constitutional Court case No. 27 / PUU-XII / 2013 concerning the testing of the
election of the Chief Justice of Supreme Court (Supreme Court) and decision number
16 / PUU-XII / 2014 concerning the testing of the election of members of the Judicial
Commission (KY) and members of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK).
Where in the election decision of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and
members of the Judicial Commission, the authority of the House of Representative is
restored limitedly only to approve or disapprove the candidates of the Chief Justices
of the Supreme Court and members of KY. This study also compares the appointment
of public officials in the United States, South Korea and the Philippines. This study
uses the normative juridical approach, with qualitative and comparative descriptive
data analysis.;The strong power and authority of the House of Representatives (DPR) due to
the amendment of the Constitution of Indonesia year 1945 (UUD 1945) can be seen
in the design of the House of Representative?s involvement scheme in the election of
several strategic public position. In the amendment of UUD 1945 there are three (3)
forms the appointment of public officials involving the DPR, through the
consideration, approval, and election. At first, the urgency of the appointment of
public officials requires the intervention of House of Representative as part of a
variant of the House supervision functions in addition to the checks and balances
function on the authority of the president. The debate arises when there is deviation in
the authority and power of the House of Representatives in the election of public
officials due to non-transparent and credible process of filling the election of public
officials.
This study will focus on the analysis of the authority of the House of
Representatives in the selection of public officials granted by the Constitution of
Indonesia year 1945. In addition, this study also analyzes the decision of the
Constitutional Court case No. 27 / PUU-XII / 2013 concerning the testing of the
election of the Chief Justice of Supreme Court (Supreme Court) and decision number
16 / PUU-XII / 2014 concerning the testing of the election of members of the Judicial
Commission (KY) and members of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK).
Where in the election decision of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and
members of the Judicial Commission, the authority of the House of Representative is
restored limitedly only to approve or disapprove the candidates of the Chief Justices
of the Supreme Court and members of KY. This study also compares the appointment
of public officials in the United States, South Korea and the Philippines. This study
uses the normative juridical approach, with qualitative and comparative descriptive
data analysis.;The strong power and authority of the House of Representatives (DPR) due to
the amendment of the Constitution of Indonesia year 1945 (UUD 1945) can be seen
in the design of the House of Representative?s involvement scheme in the election of
several strategic public position. In the amendment of UUD 1945 there are three (3)
forms the appointment of public officials involving the DPR, through the
consideration, approval, and election. At first, the urgency of the appointment of
public officials requires the intervention of House of Representative as part of a
variant of the House supervision functions in addition to the checks and balances
function on the authority of the president. The debate arises when there is deviation in
the authority and power of the House of Representatives in the election of public
officials due to non-transparent and credible process of filling the election of public
officials.
This study will focus on the analysis of the authority of the House of
Representatives in the selection of public officials granted by the Constitution of
Indonesia year 1945. In addition, this study also analyzes the decision of the
Constitutional Court case No. 27 / PUU-XII / 2013 concerning the testing of the
election of the Chief Justice of Supreme Court (Supreme Court) and decision number
16 / PUU-XII / 2014 concerning the testing of the election of members of the Judicial
Commission (KY) and members of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK).
Where in the election decision of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and
members of the Judicial Commission, the authority of the House of Representative is
restored limitedly only to approve or disapprove the candidates of the Chief Justices
of the Supreme Court and members of KY. This study also compares the appointment
of public officials in the United States, South Korea and the Philippines. This study
uses the normative juridical approach, with qualitative and comparative descriptive
data analysis.;The strong power and authority of the House of Representatives (DPR) due to
the amendment of the Constitution of Indonesia year 1945 (UUD 1945) can be seen
in the design of the House of Representative?s involvement scheme in the election of
several strategic public position. In the amendment of UUD 1945 there are three (3)
forms the appointment of public officials involving the DPR, through the
consideration, approval, and election. At first, the urgency of the appointment of
public officials requires the intervention of House of Representative as part of a
variant of the House supervision functions in addition to the checks and balances
function on the authority of the president. The debate arises when there is deviation in
the authority and power of the House of Representatives in the election of public
officials due to non-transparent and credible process of filling the election of public
officials.
This study will focus on the analysis of the authority of the House of
Representatives in the selection of public officials granted by the Constitution of
Indonesia year 1945. In addition, this study also analyzes the decision of the
Constitutional Court case No. 27 / PUU-XII / 2013 concerning the testing of the
election of the Chief Justice of Supreme Court (Supreme Court) and decision number
16 / PUU-XII / 2014 concerning the testing of the election of members of the Judicial
Commission (KY) and members of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK).
Where in the election decision of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and
members of the Judicial Commission, the authority of the House of Representative is
restored limitedly only to approve or disapprove the candidates of the Chief Justices
of the Supreme Court and members of KY. This study also compares the appointment
of public officials in the United States, South Korea and the Philippines. This study
uses the normative juridical approach, with qualitative and comparative descriptive
data analysis., The strong power and authority of the House of Representatives (DPR) due to
the amendment of the Constitution of Indonesia year 1945 (UUD 1945) can be seen
in the design of the House of Representative’s involvement scheme in the election of
several strategic public position. In the amendment of UUD 1945 there are three (3)
forms the appointment of public officials involving the DPR, through the
consideration, approval, and election. At first, the urgency of the appointment of
public officials requires the intervention of House of Representative as part of a
variant of the House supervision functions in addition to the checks and balances
function on the authority of the president. The debate arises when there is deviation in
the authority and power of the House of Representatives in the election of public
officials due to non-transparent and credible process of filling the election of public
officials.
This study will focus on the analysis of the authority of the House of
Representatives in the selection of public officials granted by the Constitution of
Indonesia year 1945. In addition, this study also analyzes the decision of the
Constitutional Court case No. 27 / PUU-XII / 2013 concerning the testing of the
election of the Chief Justice of Supreme Court (Supreme Court) and decision number
16 / PUU-XII / 2014 concerning the testing of the election of members of the Judicial
Commission (KY) and members of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK).
Where in the election decision of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and
members of the Judicial Commission, the authority of the House of Representative is
restored limitedly only to approve or disapprove the candidates of the Chief Justices
of the Supreme Court and members of KY. This study also compares the appointment
of public officials in the United States, South Korea and the Philippines. This study
uses the normative juridical approach, with qualitative and comparative descriptive
data analysis.]
T43058-Mochamad Taufik Riyadi.pdf :: Unduh