Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam menjalankan kewenangan menguji Undang-undang terhadap UUD 1945 berperan sebagai negative legislator. Dalam perkembangannya seringkali Mahkamah Konstitusi tidak hanya memutus apakah suatu norma bertentangan dengan UUD 1945 atau tidak tetapi juga merumuskan norma baru. Sikap aktif Mahkamah Konstitusi tersebut dianggap sebagai bentuk penerapan prinsip judicial activism. Judicial Activism dipahami sebagai dinamisme para hakim ketika membuat putusan tanpa melalui batas-batas konstitusi. Namun banyaknya kritik terhadap prinsip judicial activism melahirkan doktrin judicial restraint sebagai sebuah antitesa. Dalam doktrin judicial restraint, pengadilan harus dapat melakukan pengekangan diri dari kecenderungan ataupun dorongan untuk bertindak layaknya sebuah miniparliament. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi yang menerapkan prinsip ini pun tidak sedikit jumlahnya. Namun hingga kini penerapan kedua prinsip tersebut oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi belum jelas. Oleh karena itu, skripsi ini ingin membahas mengenai penerapan kedua prinsip tersebut dalam putusan pengujian Undang-undang di Mahkamah Konstitusi. Metode penulisan yang digunakan adalah yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan kualitatif dan menggunakan bahan kepustakaan serta wawancara. Dari hasil riset didapati bahwa belum adanya parameter bagi Mahkamah Konstitusi untuk memutuskan kapan dan dalam keadaan yang bagaimana bisa menerapkan prinsip judicial restraint dan judicial activism menimbulkan kerancuan. Prinsip judicial restraint dan judicial activism tidak bisa disamakan penerapannya dalam setiap kasus karena masing-masing kasus memiliki persoalan yang berbeda. Tidak ada satu prinsip yang lebih baik atau yang lebih tinggi dari prinsip lainnya, sehingga tidak bisa dikatakan jika Mahkamah Konstitusi lebih baik mengedepankan penerapan judicial restraint dibanding judicial activism maupun sebaliknya.

---

The Constitutional Court in executing its authority to review the constitutionality of the law act as negative legislator. In its development the Constitutional Court often to not only decide whether a norm contradict to the constitution or not but also formulate a new norm. The Constitutional Court 39s active stance is considered as a form of applying the judicial activism principle. Judicial Activism is understood as the dynamism of judges when making decisions without going through the boundaries of the constitution. However, many criticisms towards judicial activism causing judicial restraint doctrine to rise as an antithetical view In judicial restraint doctrin, the court must be able to exercise self restraint from the tendency to act like a miniparliament. There are many Constitutional Court's cases that applies the judicial restraint principle. However, until now the application of both principles by the Constitutional Court is not clear. Therefore, this thesis would like to examine about the application of both principles on judicial review cases in Constitutional Court. Research method used is normative juridical writing with qualitative approach from library materials and interview.

The research results found that there is no parameter yet for the Constitutional Court to decide when and under what circumstances to apply the judicial restraint and judicial activism principles. It cause confusion. Nevertheless, the judicial restraint and judicial activism principle can not be equated with the application in each case because each case has different problems. There is no one principle that is better or higher than other principles, so it can not be said if the Constitutional Court is better put forward the implementation of judicial restraint than judicial activism or vice versa. "

""This book is a valuable study of how two jurisdictions approach the task of statutory interpretation in a complex and multivalent constitutional environment. It is the product of considerable scholarship across the two jurisdictions and a fine sensitivity to the various factors and different theoretical dimensions which inform the interpretative exercise. The exposition is clear. The argument is forceful. As with all the best works of comparative law, one reads this book and learns as much about one’s own legal system as about the system with which it is compared." – from the Foreword by Philip Sales (Lord Justice of Appeal, England & Wales)How far do contemporary English and German judges go when they interpret national legislation? Where are the limits of statutory interpretation when they venture outside the constraints of the text?Judicial Law-making in English and German Courts is concerned with the limits of judicial power in a legal system. It addresses the often neglected relationship between statutory interpretation and constitutional law. It traces the practical implications of constitutional principles by exploring the outer limits of what courts regard themselves as authorised to do in the area of statutory interpretation. The book critically analyses, reconstructs and compares judicial law-making in English and German courts from comparative, methodological and constitutional perspectives. It maps the differences and commonalities in both jurisdictions and then offers explanatory accounts for these differences and similarities based on constitutional, institutional, political, historical, cultural and international factors.It will be shown that a fundamental unity of statutory interpretation exists in English and German judicial practice in the sphere of rights-consistent and EU-conforming judicial law-making. The constitutional settings and legal cultures in Germany and the UK have converged in both areas of judicial law-making. However, that is not the case for judicial law-making under conventional canons of statutory interpretation, where significant differences in judicial approach to statutory interpretation remain.Judicial Law-making in English and German Courts is the first monograph in English that compares English and German legal methodology as applied in judicial practice, appealing to those interested in statutory interpretation, comparative law or legal methodology."

"ABSTRAKOne of the duties of the Indonesian Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi - MK) is to determine whether legislation is consistent with the Constitution. If the MK determines that a statute is inconsistent with the Constitution, it declares that such statute is invalid. In such instance, the MK has the final word to determine the validity of legislation. In the view of some scholars, this feature reflects that the MK adopts strong form of judicial review. While this assertion holds true in some cases, it does not necessarily reflect the complete feature of the MKs approach in deciding cases. In some economic and social rights cases, the MK decision adopts weak form of judicial review. This paper attempts to explain that while constitutionally the MK adopts strong form of judicial review, in some economic and social rights cases it adopts weak form of judicial review."