Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"According to 1945 Constitution amended during the General Assembly of the People Consultative Assembly in 1999, the House of Representatives as Legislative Institution has an important role. This has been proved by a shift of authority on drafting from the President to the House of Representatives on its legislation initiative. The shift related to the role and authority of the House on legislation is stipulated on Section 5 article (1) and Section 20 article (1) of 1945 Constitution. From the time when the 1999 -- 2004 House of Representatives was inaugurated on 1 October 1999, this reform era of the House of Representatives was considered as having a better performance on legislation compare with previous eras of the House of Representatives. The achievement of the House of Representatives during this period can be seen from the quantity and quality aspects. From quantity aspect, since October 1999 to June 2004 there had been a number of laws, while from the quality aspect it can be said that it was better than the previous periods. However, it is realized that the quality of the laws during this period was being challenge by the people. Even from the very beginning during the publication the draft, there had been critics from the people related to the draft.This thesis discusses about the implementation of legislative function as one main function of the House of Representatives. This thesis tries to explain to what extend the House of Representatives functioning as one indicator of democracy process. The main question of this thesis is trying to describe the conversion process that is how an input to the House of Representatives in form of initiative draft is being process as an output that is the law. The theory used here is David Easton system theory and Interest Group theory from Gabriel A. Almond, and Montesquieu's threefold division of political authority.This research uses qualitative research method with data gathering technique through in-depth interview and library study. The problem is being analyzed using a comprehensive integral approach, while the mechanism of the discussion is open, and the decision made based on discussion to reach an agreement.The research result shows that during conversion process, inputs from the society and interest groups were promptly articulated, categorized and unified, and then processed to become a draft of initiative of the House of Representatives. In some cases, there were also some initiative drafts of the House of Representatives after a joint discussion with the government that were never been approved by the President."

"Amandemen terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 telah mengubah banyak hal. Hal yang amat jelas terlihat terkait kekuasaan Presiden dan Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat dalam bidang legislasi.  Pasal 5 ayat (1) Undang-Undang Dasar sebelum amandemen menyatakan bahwa Presiden memegang kekuasaan membentuk undang-undang dengan persetujuan Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat sementara setelah amandemen Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 telah berganti menjadi Presiden berhak mengajukan rancangan undang-undang kepada Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat. Selain itu pada Pasal 20 ayat (1) Undang-Undang Dasar Sebelum Amandemen juga mengalami perubahan yakni yang sebelumnya menyatakan tiap-tiap undang-undang menghendaki persetujuan Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat berubah menjadi Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat memegang kekuasaan membentuk undang-undang. Hal ini menunjukan kekuasaan Presiden setelah perubahan UUD Tahun 1945 di bidang legislasi mengalami pengurangan secara signifikan. Ini memperlihatkan perubahan aturan yang berkenaan dengan kekuasaan Presiden oleh semua kalangan dianggap telah terjadi pergeseran dari executive heavy ke arah legislative heavy. Pasal 20 ayat (2) menyatakan setiap rancangan undang-undang dibahas oleh Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat dan Presiden untuk mendapat persetujuan bersama dan tercapainya checks and balances system dalam bidang legislasi pada Undang-Undang Dasar setelah amandemen. Walaupun telah tercapai nya prinsip checks and balances setelah amandemen UUD 1945, nyatanya pada prakteknya terdapat perselisihan/konflik yang terjadi antara Presiden dan DPR dalam bidang legislasi. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian kualitatif dengan desain analisis deskriptif. Permasalahan ini ditinjau dari perbandingan hukum dengan metode penelitian yuridis normatif dan penulisan bersifat deskriptif.

---

Checs and Balances Mechanism of the President and the House of Representatives in Indonesia in the Function of Legislation Based on the 1945 Constitution Before and After the Amendment Amendments to the 1945 Constitution have changed many things. This is very clearly seen related to the power of the President and the House of Representatives in the field of legislation. Article 5 paragraph (1) of the Constitution before the amendment states that the President holds the power to form laws with the approval of the temporary House of Representatives after the amendment to the 1945 Constitution has changed to the President has the right to submit draft laws to the House of Representatives. In addition, Article 20 paragraph 1 of the Constitution Before the Amendment also underwent changes, namely that previously stated that each law required the approval of the House of Representatives to change to the House of Representatives holding the power to form laws. This shows that the power of the President after the amendment to the 1945 Constitution in the field of legislation has decreased significantly. This shows that changes in the rules relating to the power of the President by all groups are considered to have occurred a shift from executive heavy to legislative heavy. Article 20 paragraph (2) states that each draft law is discussed by the House of Representatives and the President for mutual approval and the achievement of a checks and balances system in the field of legislation in the Constitution after the amendment. Although the principle of checks and balances has been achieved after the amendment to the 1945 Constitution, in practice there are disputes/conflicts between the President and the DPR in the field of legislation. This research is a qualitative research with descriptive analysis design. This problem is viewed from a legal comparison with normative juridical research methods and descriptive writing."

"Tesis ini menganalisi mengenai pengawasan oleh Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat terhadap pelaksanaan keadaan darurat atau keadaan bahaya menurut Pasal 12 Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945 yang kewenangan dalam keadaan darurat tersebut hanya terletak pada satu cabang kekuasaan, yaitu eksekutif. Bahkan, dalam Undang-undang Nomor 23 Tahun 1959 disebutkan, bahwa pengawasan oleh hakim dan Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat ditiadakan jika situasi negara berada dalam keadaan darurat sesaat setelah diumumkan oleh penguasa keadaa darurat (eksekutif). Berbeda halnya pengaturan mengenai pengawasan dibeberapa negara yang memberikan Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat kewenangan untuk melakukan pengawasan, bahkan sebelum keadaan darurat tersebut diumumkan. Tesis ini bermaksud menjawab mengenai bagaimana pengawasan Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat di Indonesia terlibat dalam berbagai keadaan darurat yang pernah terjadi di Indonesia, dan juga mengenai bagaimana pengaturan yang ideal pengawasan yang dilakukan oleh Dewan Perwakilan rakyat dalam keadaan darurat. Dengan menggunakan pendekatan secara konseptual dan juga pendekatan secara perundang-undangan ditemukan beberapa persoalan di dalam beberapa situasi darurat yang berkaitan dengan pengawasan yang dilakukan oleh Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat dan juga hukum yang digunakan dalam situasi darurat itu sendiri, dan dengan berbagai pendekatan yang dilakukan, disimpulkan bahwa pengaturan mengenai keadaan darurat di Indonesia harus ditinjau ulang karena banyak yang sudah tidak sesuai dengan perkembangan zaman, khususnya dalam hal pengawasan. Pelaksanaan keadaan darurat tidak bisa dijalankan oleh satu kekuasaan tanpa melibatkan cabang kekuasaan lain, hal itu akan cenderung disalahgunakan

---

This thesis analyzes the supervision by the House of Representatives on the implementation of an emergency or a state of danger according to Article 12 of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia which authority in an emergency situation lies only in one branch of power, namely the executive. In fact, in Law Number 23 Prp of 1959 it is stated that supervision by judges and the House of Representatives is abolished if the state is in a state of emergency immediately after an emergency (executive) authority has announced it. This is different from the regulation regarding supervision in several countries which gives the House of Representatives the authority to carry out supervision, even before the state of emergency is declared. This thesis intends to answer how the supervision of the House of Representatives in Indonesia is involved in various emergencies that have occurred in Indonesia, and also about the ideal arrangement of supervision carried out by the House of Representatives in an emergency. By using a conceptual approach as well as a statutory approach, several problems were found in several emergency situations related to the supervision carried out by the House of Representatives and also the law used in the emergency situation itself, and with the various approaches taken, it was concluded that Regulations regarding the state of emergency in Indonesia must be reviewed because many are not in accordance with the times, especially in terms of supervision. The implementation of a state of emergency cannot be carried out by one power without involving other branches of power, it will tend to be misused."

"Hak interpelasi merupakan salah satu hak yang dapat digunakan Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat dalam melaksanakan fungsi pengawasan yang dimilikinya berdasarkan konstitusi. Mekanisme pelaksanaannya telah diatur dalam undang- undang dan aturan pelaksananya yaitu tata tertib. Pelaksanaannya pun sudah dilakukan beberapa kali sejak Undang-Undang Dasar Tahun 1945 diamandemen, walaupun hanya sedikit di antaranya yang benar-benar digunakan atau disetujui untuk digunakan dalam rapat paripurna DPR. Dalam penggunaan hak interpelasi, beberapa kali terjadi perbedaan penafsiran antar sesama anggota Dewan terhadap ketentuan yang mengaturnya yang disebabkan adanya pertentangan antara undang-undang dan peraturan tata tertib DPR sebagai peraturan pelaksana dari undang-undang dimaksud. Untuk itu diperlukan metode penafsiran sesuai dengan doktrin untuk dapat menjelaskan pengertian tersebut, sehingga dapat menciptakan kepastian hukum dalam menerapkan hak interpelasi.

---

AbstractThe right of interpellation is a right that can be used by The House of Representatives in carrying out its oversight function by the constitution. Implementation mechanisms are set in statute and the rules implementing the order. Implementation were already done several times since the Constitution of 1945 was amended, although only a few are actually used or approved for use in the plenary session of Parliament. In the use of interpellation, some times there is a difference of interpretation among fellow members of the Board of the provisions that govern them are caused by the contradiction between the law and disciplinary rules of the House of Representatives as the regulations implementing the law in question. It required a method of interpretation in accordance with the doctrine to be able to explain the sense, so as to create legal certainty in applying the right of interpellation."

"DPR fullflled mandate of the people, one of its way is through legislation function, namely formedAct with an agreement with the President. Expectations of the people filled with less than optimalby DPR caused by the performance of the parliament in the field of legislation which was lessthan satisfactory because did not fulfill the Prolegnas target which they had made themself. Thiscondition caused the functions of DPR as parliament not fully carried out in encouraging peopleprosperity and developing the country. Hence, it is important to do a series of policy and concretesteps to minimize problems that involve parliament as well as to promote better performancelegislation function in the House of Representatives.DPR melaksanakan amanat rakyat antara lain melalui fungsi legislasi, yakni membentuk UUdengan kesepakatan bersama Presiden. Harapan rakyat kurang dipenuhi secara optimal oleh DPRdisebabkan kinerja parlemen di bidang legislasi yang kurang memuaskan karena tidak memenuhitarget Prolegnas yang dibuatnya sendiri. Kondisi ini menyebabkan fungsi-fungsi DPR sebagaiparlemen kurang maksimal dalam mendorong kesejahteraan rakyat dan kemajuan negara.Untuk itu penting dilakukan serangkaian kebijakan dan langkah konkret guna meminimalisirpermasalahan yang membelit parlemen sekaligus mendorong peningkatan kinerja DPR dalamfungsi legislasi."