Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"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."

"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."

"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."

"Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat (DPR) sebagai lembaga perwakilan rakyat mempunyai fungsi salah satunya adalah fungsi pengawasan. Dalam melaksanakan fungsi tersebut DPR diberikan hak salah satunya adalah hak interpelasi. Hak tersebut merupakan hak DPR dalam melakukan pengawasan untuk meminta keterangan kepada pemerintah mengenai kebijakan pemerintah yang penting dan strategis serta berdampak luas pada kehidupan bermasyarakat, berbangsa, dan bernegara. Maka, tulisan ini akan membahas mengenai pengaturan fungsi pengawasan dan hak interpelasi DPR terhadap pemerintah di Indonesia serta pelaksanaan hak interpelasi DPR terhadap kebijakan pemerintah di Indonesia dari tahun 2004 sampai 2023. Tulisan ini dihasilkan melalui penelitian yuridis-normatif dengan metode kualitatif yang menggambarkan dan menganalisis data yang diperoleh secara komprehensif untuk menjawab permasalahan yang ada. Oleh karena itu, pengaturan hak interpelasi DPR dan fungsi pengawasan DPR sebagai wakil rakyat dapat melakukan pengawasan terhadap pelaksanaan suatu undang-undang atau kebijakan pemerintah yang ada sebagaimana telah termuat dalam Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945. Sudah banyak pelaksanaan hak interpelasi yang dilaksanakan dari tahun 2004 sampai 2023. Namun, dalam pelaksanaannya perlu ditinjau lebih lanjut lagi terutama mengenai mekanisme hak interpelasi terkait kehadiran presiden untuk memberikan jawaban interpelasi. 

---

Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat (DPR) as a people's representative institution has a function, one of which is a oversight function. In carrying out this function, the DPR is given rights, one of which is the right of interpellation. This right is the right of the DPR in carrying out supervision to request information from the government regarding important and strategic government policies that have a broad impact on the life of society, nation and state. Thus, this paper will discuss the regulation of the oversight function and the DPR's interpellation rights over the government in Indonesia as well as the implementation of the DPR's interpellation rights over government policies in Indonesia from 2004 to 2023. This paper was produced through normative-juridical research using qualitative methods that describe and analyze data obtained comprehensively to answer the existing problems. Therefore, the regulation of the DPR's right of interpellation and the supervisory function of the DPR as the representative of the people can supervise the implementation of an existing law or government policy as contained in Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945. There have been many implementations of the interpellation right from from 2004 to 2023. However, in practice it needs to be reviewed further, especially regarding the mechanism for the right of interpellation related to the presence of the president to provide interpellation answers."

"ABSTRAK

Dewan Pertimbangan Agung atau disingkat DPA merupakan dewan penasihat dan pertimbangan untuk Presiden yang merupakan salah satu Lembaga Negara yang berkedudukan di bawah Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat, akan tetapi sederajat dengan Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat, Presiden/Wakil Presiden, Mahkamah Agung dan Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan. DPA sudah ada sejak di sahkannya UUD Negara Tahun 1945. DPA beberapa kali mengalami perubahan. Dari mulai perubahan nama DPA, yang pernah berubah menjadi DPAS, Dewan Nasional, dan akhirnya kembali lagi menjadi DPA. Perubahan juga pernah terjadi di dalam susunan dan keanggotan DPA di dalam perannya sebagai penasihat dan juga dewan pertimbangan untuk pemerintah. Pasca Amandemen ke empat (4) Undang-Undang Dasar 1945, BAB IV tentang DPA telah dihapus dan melalui Pasal 16 UUD 1945 setelah amandemen ke-4 UUD 1945 mengamanahkan kepada Presiden untuk membentuk suatu dewan pertimbangannya yang selanjutnya dinamakan Dewan Pertimbangan Presiden atau biasa disingkat Wantimpres. Berdasarkan UU Nomor 19 Tahun 2006, Dewan Pertimbangan Presiden adalah lembaga pemerintahan yang bertugas memberikan nasihat dan pertimbangan kepada Presiden, yang berarti kedudukan Wantimpres menjadi di dalam kekuasaan eksekutif, atau di bawah Presiden (Pemerintah). Wantimpres di dalam fungsinya memberikan nasihat, opsi, ataupun pertimbangannya kepada Presiden, memiliki beberapa persamaan dan juga perbedaan jika dibandingkan dengan Dewan Pertimbangan Agung atau DPA pada masa sebelum adanya amandemen UUD Tahun 1945.

---

ABSTRACT

The Supreme Advisory Council (Dewan Pertimbangan Agung) or as known as the DPA is an advisory and consideration council for the President which is one of the Country’s Institution that constitutes under the People’s Consultative Assembly (Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat), however is equivalent with House of Representatives (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat), the President/Vice President, the Supreme Court, and the Financial Investigation Bureau (Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan). DPA has been legitimated since the legitimation of the UUD of Republik of Indonesia year 1945. The DPA has encountered changes during the time of its existence. The changes range from a change of the name of DPA into DPAS, National Council, and then back to DPA. After the fourth Amendment of UUD 1945, CHAPTER IV concerning the DPA was erased and through Article 16 UUD 1945 after the fourth Amendment of UUD 1945, it is mandated to the President to form an advisory council that will further be named as President’s Advisory Council (Dewan Pertimbangan Presiden) or known as Wantimpres. According to Law Number 19 Year 2006, the President’s Advisory Council is a governmental institutaion that is in charge of providing advice and considerations to the resident, which means Wantimpres is positioned as part of the executive authority, or under the President (Government). Wantimpres functions on giving advice, options or considerations to the President, has a few similarities and differences if compared to the Supreme Advisory Council or DPA that existed before the Amendment of UUD 1945.

"

"Skripsi ini membahas kedudukan dan fungsi DPR serta perbandingannya dengan DPD dan Presiden, dalam pembentukan undang-undang menurut UUD 1945. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian hukum yuridis-normatif menggunakan studi kepustakaan eksploratoris. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa fungsi legislasi Presiden berdasarkan pasal 5 ayat (1) UUD 1945, sedangkan dalam lembaga perwakilan Indonesia yang memiliki fungsi legislasi dalam membentuk rancangan undang-undang adalah DPR dan DPD berdasarkan Pasal 20 ayat (1) dan Pasal 22D UUD 1945; perbandingan fungsi legislasi antara keduanya adalah dalam hal kewenangan, DPD dalam fungsi legislasinya hanyalah sebagai acuan, yang perannya dalam merancang suatu undang-undang tidak dapat mengawal proses terjadinya maupun menolak suatu undang-undang. Sistem pemerintahan dalam perspektif fungsi legislasi di Indonesia tidak menganut sistem bikameral dimana ada dua kamar yang memiliki kewenangan yang sama dalam hal legislasi.

---

The focus of this study is the status and function of the House of Representatives in the establishment of the law according to the Constitution. The purpose of this study is to compare between the House of Representatives, the House of Regional Representatives (the Senate) and the President in respective of their legislative functions. This research is a juridical normative-legal research using the explanatory library studies. The results showed that President’s legislative functions under Article 5 paragraph (1), whereas the representative institutions in Indonesia which has the function of legislation in the form of the Bill, are the House of Representatives and the House of Regional Representatives (the Senate) based on Article 20 paragraph (1) and Article 22D of the Constitution; comparison of legislative function between both Houses is in terms of their authority."

"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."

"ABSTRAKUji Konstitusionalitas Peraturan Perundang-undangan (Constitutional Review)dapat diuji melalui mekanisme uji materil di Mahkamah Konstitusi (judicialreview), di Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat (legislative review), dan oleh Eksekutif(excecutive review). Untuk uji materil undang-undang dapat melalui 2 (dua)mekanisme yakni melalui judicial review di Mahkamah Konstitusi dan legislativereview di DPR meskipun hasilnya berbeda. Apabila Mahkamah Konstitusimembatalkan norma sedangkan DPR menggantikan norma. Akhir-akhir ini adawarga negara apabila ingin mengajukan uji materiil ke Mahkamah Konstitusidisarankan untuk ke DPR karena bukan wewenang MahkamahKonstitusi.Legislative review yang dilakukan dalam kapasitas sebagai lembagayang membentuk dan membahas serta menyetujui undang-undang. Bagi lembagayang menjalankan fungsi legislasi dalam hal ini Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat (DPR)dan presiden serta DPD (untuk Undang-undang tertentu) untuk menjadi masukanyang bermanfaat untuk meningkatkan kinerja dan memperkuat fungsi legislasi.Untuk itu kedudukan legislative review oleh Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat (DPR)merupakan mekanisme uji konstitusionalitas undang-undang untuk menerima ujikonstitusionalitas undang-undang terhadap terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar yangdiajukan oleh masyarakat. Checks and balances dalam pembentukan undangundangsangat penting sebagai bagian dari pelaksanaan tugas wakil rakyat danperan DPR dalam pembentukan undang-undang merupakan sebagai bentukpertanggungjawaban kepada konstituen atau rakyat yang memilih.

---

ABSTRACTReview the Constitutionality of Legislation (Constitutional Review) can be testedthrough a mechanism of judicial review in the Constitutional Court (judicialreview), in the House of Representatives (legislative), and by the Executive(excecutive review). For judicial legislation can in 2 (two) through the mechanismof judicial review in the Constitutional Court and legislative review in the Houseof Representatives although the results are different. If the Constitutional Courtannulled the norm while the House replace the norm. Lately there if citizens wantto file a judicial review to the Constitutional Court suggested to the Housebecause it was not authorized to Konstitusi.Legislative Court review done in thecapacity of institutions that make and review and approve legislation. For thoseinstitutions that perform the function of legislation in this House ofRepresentatives (DPR) and the president and DPD (for specific legislation) to be auseful input to improve performance and strengthen the legislative function. Forthe position of legislative review by the House of Representatives (DPR) is atesting mechanism constitutionality of laws to accept constitutionality of lawsagainst the Constitution proposed by the community. Checks and balances in thelegislation are very important as part of the implementation of the tasks and roleof the people's representatives in Parliament is law making as a form ofaccountability to constituents or the people who choose."