Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

""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."

"Penyalahgunaan keadaan merupakan salah satu alasan pembatalan perjanjian di dalam Nieuw Burgerlijk Wetboek di Belanda. Dewasa ini penyalahgunaan keadaan mulai digunakan sebagai alasan Majelis Hakim di Indonesia untuk membatalkan suatu putusan. Di Jerman sendiri tidak terdapat doktrin penyalahgunaan keadaan, namun terdapat aturan terkait penyalahgunaan keadaan, yakni Pasal 138 ayat (1) dan Pasal 138 ayat (2) Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk membandingkan penyalahgunaan keadaan yang ada di Belanda dan Jerman dan juga merumuskan ketentuan apakah yang tepat untuk mengatur penyalahgunaan keadaan di Indonesia. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan (statute approach) dan perbandingan (comparative approach). Berdasarkan hasil penelitian dapat disimpulkan, bahwa Indonesia lebih baik mengikuti teori penyalahgunaan keadaan yang dianut oleh Belanda karena teori penyalahgunaan keadaan di Belanda telah lama digunakan di Indonesia dan juga teori ini tidak terlalu memberikan batasan yang sempit untuk diterapkan.

---

Undue influence is one of the defects of consent in Nieuw Burgerlijk Wetboek in Netherlands. Recently, undue influence has been used by Indonesian court as one of the defects of consent. In Germany, there’s no doctrine about undue influence, but there’s a statute that related to undue influence, articles 138 (1) and (2) Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch. The purpose of this research is to compare undue influence in Dutch Law and German Law, also to find the best formula to regulate undue influence in Indonesian Law. According to this research, Indonesia better follow undue influence in Dutch Law, because it’s long been used in Indonesia and it doesn’t give a narrow restriction to apply. "

"Distinctly the 1945 Constitution has given authority to perform judicial power to the “Supreme Court", that is the authority to perform judiciary. The authority to perform judiciary in concrete reality, means expressing what the law is for the case presented to him. Reviewing (testing) the law in principle is also an action for expressing its law, because this action means determining whether a law is conitradictory to the Constitution or not"

"ABSTRAKBerdasarkan constitutional authority, pengujian perundang-undangan Indonesia dilakukan oleh dua lembaga yudisial. Terdapat perbedaan yang sangat menarik, pengujian peraturan perundang-undangan yang dilakukan oleh Mahkamah Agung judicial review on the legality of regulation dilakukan dengan sidang pemeriksaan tertutup, sedangkan pengujian oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi judicial review on the constitusionality of law dilakukan dengan sidang pemeriksaan terbuka. Metode penelitian yang digunakan menggunakan metode yuridis normatif dengan menyertakan pendeketan perbandingan. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukan urgensi keterbukan sidang pemeriksaan hak uji materiil di Mahkamah Agung, baik dari segi perkembangan sejarah bahwa ketertutupan sidang pemeriksaan judicial review di Mahkamah Agung erat kaitannya usaha melanggengkan kekuasaan, dari segi permasalahan aktual dan karakteristik pengujian peraturan perundang-undang bukan seperti pengadilan biasa dapat disempurnakan dengan keterbukaan sidang pemeriksaan. Selain itu hasil penelitian ini menunjukan bahwa dengan adanya pembaharuan melalui sidang pemeriksaan pendahuluan dan sidang pemeriksaan pokok perkara yang terbuka untuk umum memiliki relevansi terhadap perbaikan dan penguatan kualitas putusan. Oleh sebab itu pada bagian akhir penelitian dikemukakan suatu kesimpulan dan rekomendasi bahwa gagasan keterbukaan sidang pemeriksaan ini sangat konstitusional dan urgen untuk segera diterapkan dalam hak uji materiil di Mahkamah Agung. Caranya cukup melakukan perubahan terhadap undang-undang tentang Mahkamah Agung dengan mengatur dan memasukan materi sidang pemeriksaan pendahuluan dan pemeriksaan pokok perkara berdasarkan alternatif pilihan yang dapat dipilih pembuat undang-undang.

---

ABSTRACTBased on Constitutional Authority, Indonesia 39 s judicial review is conducted by two judicial institutions. There is a distinction to analyze, the judicial review by Supreme Court on the legality of regulation conducted with a closed hearing, while the judicial review on the constitutionality of law is conducted by a trial open hearing. This research uses juridical normative method with comparative approach. The results of this research show that there is an urgency for open judicial review hearing in the Supreme Court as seen from the historical aspect that closed judicial review in the Supreme Court is strongly connected to preserving power and the characteristic aspect that judicial review can be improved with open court proceedings. The research also shows that reform through introductory trial and public principal hearing is relevant to improvement of the quality of decisions. Therefore, it is concluded and recommended at the last part of the research that open judicial review hearing is constitutional and must be urgently implemented in the Supreme Court by making changes in the law about the Supreme Court and incorporating introductory trial and principal hearing based on alternative options that can be chosen by lawmakers."

"ABSTRAKTesis ini menganalisis secara normatif pelaksanaan Undang-undangNomor 48 Tahun 2009 tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman terhadap Undang-undangNomor 40 Tahun 2002 tentang Pers dan membandingkannya dengan The SixthAmandement of United States of America sebagai dasar adanya pembatasanpeliputan di ruang sidang di Amerika Serikat. Peliputan ruang sidang yangdisiarkan secara langsung (live) merupakan fenomena baru yang makin marakterjadi di ruang sidang di Indonesia dan sedikit demi sedikit telah menyampingkankekuasaan kehakiman dalam ruang sidang. Dalam penelitian ini, teori yangdipakai adalah teori tentang negara hukum, teori tentang pers, dan teori tentangkekuasaan kehakiman. Metode analisis dengan membandingkan undang-undanglalu kemudian membandingkan tata cara peliputan di ruang sidang antaraIndonesia dan Amerika Serikat. Hasil penelitian membuktikan bahwa sistemperadilan Indonesia belum mengatur secara tegas tentang tata cara peliputan diruang sidang sebagaimana halnya di Amerika Serikat padahal keduanya adalahsama-sama negara demokrasi.

---

ABSTRACTThis study analyzed the normative implementation of Law No. 48 of 2009of Judicial Power toward Law No. 40 of 2002 of the Press and comparing it toThe Sixth Amandement of the United States of America as a basis for reportingrestrictions in the courtroom in the United States. Coverage in the courtroomwhich broadcast live is a new phenomenon that is increasingly rampant in thecourtroom in Indonesia and has set aside the judicial power in the courtroom. Inthis study, the theory used is the theory of the state law, the theory of the press,and the theory of judicial power. Methods of analysis by comparing the laws andthen compare the coverage in the courtroom between Indonesia and the UnitedStates. The research proves that the Indonesian justice system has not been setexplicitly about reporting procedures in the courtroom as well as in the UnitedStates even though both are equally democratic state."

"Tesis ini membahas tentang mekanisme ideal pengangkatan pegawai Penghubung Komisi Yudisial. Selama ini status kepegawaian Penghubung adalah pegawai honorer yang tidak diatur dalam UU ASN. Hal itu membuat tidak ada kepastian mengenai hak keperdataan Penghubung, baik mengenai jaminan pendapatan (gaji dan tunjangan), perlindungan, dan pengembangan kompetensi. Kepastian status kepegawaian juga menentukan mekanisme seleksi, pengangkatan dan pemberhentian, pelaksanaan tugas pokok dan fungsi, pola karir, serta mekanisme evaluasi kinerja. Hal ini menarik karena Penghubung Komisi Yudisial sudah terbentuk sejak tahun 2013 di 12 Provinsi, tetapi status kepegawaiannya tidak jelas. Permasalahan yang diangkat adalah urgensi keberadaan Penghubung Komisi Yudisial, Pengaturan status kepegawaian Penghubung Komisi Yudisial, dan mekanisme ideal pengangkatan Penghubung di Komisi Yudisial. Metode penelitian yang digunakan penulis adalah yuridis normatif, menggunakan pendekatan analisis kualitatif, dengan menggunakan penelusuran literatur sebagai studi dokumen pada data sekunder. Adapun hasil penelitian menemukan bahwa keberadaan Penghubung sangat urgen sebagai pembantu pelaksana tugas Komisi Yudisial di daerah. Akan tetapi pengaturan mengenai status kepegawaiannya tidak jelas dan hanya sebagai pegawai honorer. Oleh karena itu Penghubung idealnya adalah menjadi ASN yaitu sebagai PNS. Sementara Penghubung yang tidak memenuhi kualifikasi sebagai PNS, terutama karena syarat usia, maka ditransformasikan sebagai PPPK dengan pengaturan yang mengikuti ketentuan UU ASN dan PP Manajemen PPPK. Tujuannya, agar Penghubung memiliki perlindungan dan kepastian hukum yang jelas. Sebab ketidakjelasan status Penghubung membuat beberapa diantara mereka memilih resign dan memilih pekerjaan lain. Kondisi tersebut tentu sebuah ironi mengingat penghubung bekerja di Komisi Yudisial yang merupakan Lembaga Negara sekaligus entitas pemerintahan. Sebagai entitas pemerintahan yang bekerja dalam rangka memberikan layanan publik seharusnya Penghubung menjadi aparatur sipil Negara dan mengikuti ketentuan dalam UU ASN. Apalagi pekerjaan Penghubung membutuhkan tingkat kerahasiaan tinggi, sehingga status kepegawaian Penghubung juga harus kuat secara formal.

---

This thesis discusses the ideal mechanism for appointing the Judicial Commission Liaison Employee. So far, the Liaison's employment status is an temporary employee which is not regulated in the ASN Law. This creates no certainty regarding the Liaison's civil rights, both regarding income security (salaries and benefits), protection, and competency development. Certainity of employment status will also determine the selection mechanism, appointment and dismissal, implementation of basic tasks and functions, career patterns, and mechanism of performance evaluations. This is interesting because the Judicial Commission Liaison has been formed since 2013 in 12 Provinces, but the employment status is not clear. The research method used by the author is normative juridical, using a qualitative analysis approach, and using literature search as a document study on secondary data. The study results found that the existence of liaisons is very urgent as assistants implementing the duties of the Judicial Commission in the regions. However, the regulation regarding their employment status is not clear and they are only a temporary employees. Therefore, ideally the Liaison is to become an ASN, namely as a civil servants (PNS). Meanwhile, Liaisons who do not fulfil the qualifications as civil servants (PNS), mainly because of the age requirement, are transformed into PPPK with arrangements that follow the provisions of the ASN Law and PP Manajemen PPPK. In order to have clear protection and legal certainty. Because the unclear status of the Liaisons made some of them choose to resign and moved to other jobs. This condition is certainly an irony considering that the Liaison works in the Judicial Commission which is a State Institution as well as a government entity in a broad sense. As a government entity that works in the context of providing public services, the Liaison should become a state civil apparatus and follow the provisions of the ASN Law. Moreover, Liaison job requires a high degree of confidentiality, so the Liaison's employment status must also be formally strong."

"How should courts interpret the law? While all agree that courts must be objective, people differ sharply over what this demands in practice: fidelity to the text? To the will of the people? To certain moral ideals? In Judicial Review in an Objective Legal System, Tara Smith breaks through the false dichotomies inherent in dominant theories - various forms of originalism, living constitutionalism, and minimalism - to present a new approach to judicial review. She contends that we cannot assess judicial review in isolation from the larger enterprise of which it is a part. By providing careful clarification of both the function of the legal system as well as of objectivity itself, she produces a compelling, firmly grounded account of genuinely objective judicial review. Smith's innovative approach marks a welcome advance for anyone interested in legal objectivity and individual rights."