Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Rekrutmen Hakim merupakan basis independensi kekuasaan kehakiman. Penelitian ini bermaksud menjawab permasalahan terkait konstruksi rekrutmen hakim di Indonesia, bagaimana implementasi setelah rekrutmen menjadi kewenangan satu atap, dan bagaimanakah rekrutmen hakim ideal untuk ketatanegaraan Indonesia. Penelitian ini dilaksanakan dengan metode yuridis normatif melalui studi literatur, dengan perbandingan Negara Belanda, Perancis, Italia, Jepang dan India. Hasil Penelitian menunjukkan bahwa Konstruksi rekrutmen hakim Indonesia dibangun dari pergeseran rekrutmen oleh kementerian kehakiman menjadi model rekrutmen oleh Mahkamah Agung dengan sistem satu atap. Selanjutnya pasca amandemen rekrutmen hakim dijalankan dengan model Komisi Yudisial. Implementasi rekrutmen hakim di Indonesia masih belum sejalan dengan konsepsi Judicial Self governance, dimana rekrutmen masih belum terstandarisasi baik dari sisi pelaku, metode dan persyaratan. Rekrutmen hakim agung menggunakan metode appointment by judicial commission meskipun kewenangan DPR telah dianulir MK, namun metode cooperative appointment masih terus dijalankan dengan metode double fit and proper test. Rekrutmen hakim tingkat pertama dilaksanakan dengan metode recruitment by political institution dengan sub model Ministry, meskipun pasca putusan MK diperintahkan untuk dilakukan secara judicial self appointment namun nyatanya MA menyerahkan proses kepada Menpan-BKN yang notabene eksekutif. Sedangkan untuk hakim adhoc dan hakim pajak, potensial dengan intervensi eksekutif dalam pelaksanaan rekrutmennya. Sebagai bentuk ideal yang ditawarkan adalah rekrutmen hakim dengan metode appointed by judicial commission dengan model single body appointment, idealitas model rekrutmen terletak pada asas-asas rekruitmen yang transparan, akuntabel, partisipatif dan obyektif dengan sinergi antara Mahkamah Agung dan Komisi Yudisial.  Saran penelitian, pengaturan rekrutmen hakim perlu diatur dalam konstitusi kita, standarisasi tersebut termasuk dalam konsistensi personal judicial self-governance dengan berpegang pada Independensi dan efektifitas administrasi peradilan.   

---

The selection of Judges is the basis of judicial independence. This research was designed to exercise, the construction of judge appointment process in Indonesia, How the recruitment of judge was implemented under the one roof system and answering the ideal model of judge appointment in Indonesia. This was normative juridic research, conducted by literature study, and comparative study to Netherland, France, Italy, Japan, and India. The conclusions show that the construction of Judicial Appointment in Indonesia was shifted from Ministry of Justice to Judicial self-Appointment by the one roof system enactment.  The construction shifting continuous to “appointment by Judicial council/commission model” after the amendment. The implementation of the judge appointment process was not suitable to the principles of Judicial Self-governance, since the subject, method and requirement were not standardized. The judge appointment was Implemented as follow, Supreme court judge appointment was using the “appointment by judicial commission model” even though Legislative involvement were annulled by the supreme court, but the cooperative appointment is still being practiced with the double fit and proper test method. The Implementation of first instance judge appointment was conducted ala recruitment by political institution, in sub-Ministry model, this model was against the constitutional court decision since it should be held by “judicial self-appointment” since judicial commission involvement was unconstitutional, but supreme court was given the authority to state apparatus ministry and state civil servant Body (Menpan-BKN) instead. While the appointment of ad hoc judges and tax judges were potentially open the interference by the executive.  The study proposed the appointment by judicial commission with the single body appointment model as the ideal model. The ideal appointment method needs to rely on the core principles of appointment which are transparent, accountable, participative, and objective, this also need Supreme Court dan Judicial Commission synergy. The study suggests that our constitution needs to arrange the Judge appointment mechanism, this also includes the personal judicial self-governance based on independence and effectiveness of the judiciary."

"Judicial power as an independent and autonomous power must be free from any intervention and power, thus ensuring that judges possess independence and impartiality in handling cases. One of the measures for enhancing the independence and autonomy of the judiciary is by placing it under the one roof judicial arrangement developed by the Supreme Court, both from the judicial as well as the non-judicial technical aspects. Up to the present time, endeavors for bringing the four court jurisdictions under the one roof judicial arrangement developed by the Supreme Court have not been completely materialized, due to the existing dualism in judicial power at various courts. The objective of this research is to understand the developments in the endeavors towards bringing the Indonesian judicial system under the one roof judicial arrangement developed by the Supreme Court. The type of research applied is descriptive normative juridical research, namely legal research based on examining secondary data. As the research results indicate, the one roof system developed by the Supreme Court is already being implemented, with the exception of the Military Court and the Tax Court within the State Administration Court jurisdiction."

"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"

"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. "

"Pasal 24 Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia (UUD 1945) yang telah mengalami perubahan menyebutkan bahwa kekuasaan kehakiman di Republik Indonesia adalah ?kekuasaan kehakiman yang merdeka?. Hakim disini memegang peran sentral dalam peradilan sebagai personifikasi dari peradilan, sehingga kedudukan hakim dan kemerdekaan hakim harus dijamin dalam sebuah undang-undang (UU). Saat ini, kekuasaan kehakiman diatur dalam UU No. 48 Tahun 2009 tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman, oleh karena itu tujuan utama dari penulisan skripsi ini adalah untuk menganalisis materi UU No. 48 Tahun 2009 dalam melindungi kemerdekaan hakim di Republik Indonesia berdasarkan prinsip-prinsip kekuasaan kehakiman yang terdapat pada UUD 1945 dan instrumen-instrumen internasional. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian normatif yang dilengkapi dengan pendekatan sejarah, perbandingan dengan negara lain dan pendekatan kasus. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa UU No. 48 Tahun 2009 telah memiliki norma-norma yang mengatur kemerdekaan hakim, namun tetap masih terdapat kekurangan dan ketidaklengkapan dari materi UU No. 48 Tahun 2009 dalam melindungi kemerdekaan hakim, sehingga perlu diadakan perbaikan terhadap UU No. 48 Tahun 2009.

---

Article 24 of The 1945 Amended Constitution of Republic of Indonesia stated that "The judicial power branch shall be independent". In here, judge has a central role on the judiciary, that judge as the personification of judiciary, therefore judge's status and independence shall be secured by law. Now, the judicial power is regulated on Act No. 48 Year 2009 (The Judical Power Act), so then the purpose of this writing is to analyze the substance of Act No. 48 Year 2009 in accomodating judge's independence in the Republic of Indonesia based on the judicial principles on the 1945 Constitution and international instruments. This is a normative study and also be improved by historical approach, comparative approach and case study method. The result of this study showed that the Act of No. 48 Year 2009 has contained the general norms to protect judge?s independence, but still has to be revised because of its material incompleteness in order to protect judge's independence."

"Tesis ini membahas tentang tinjauan kelembagaan Bawaslu dengan kewenangan quasi judicial atau semi peradilan dalam menyelesaikan masalah hukum pemilu pelanggaran administratif dan sengketa proses pemilu pada pelaksanaan pemilu tahun 2019. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum normatif dengan menggunakan studi kepustakaan dan wawancara dalam pengumpulan data, kemudian data-data yang diperoleh dianalisis dengan menggunakan pendekatan hukum kualitatif. Secara konstitusional, pembentukan Bawaslu sebagai satu kesatuan fungsi penyelenggaraan pemilu di Indonesia menginduk kepada Pasal 22 E ayat (5) UUD 1945 serta dikuatkan berdasarkan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 11/PUU-VIII/2010. Pada Pasal 22 E ayat (5) UUD 1945 tersebut menegaskan bahwa penyelenggara pemilu bersifat mandiri. Dalam prakteknya, Bawaslu telah memenuhi karakteristik sebagai lembaga Negara yang mandiri atau independen berdasarkan dasar pembentukannya. Sebagai lembaga Negara yang mandiri, Bawaslu secara ketatanegaraan dimungkinkan untuk memiliki kewenangan dalam  menjalankan fungsi quasi judicial. Diketahui bahwa dalam perkembangan lembaga negara pasca amandemen UUD 1945, selain Bawaslu terdapat lembaga negara independen lainnya yang memiliki kewenangan dengan fungsi quasi judicial. Lembaga tersebut misalnya Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha (KPPU) dan Komisi Informasi Publik (KIP). Sebagai lembaga Negara lapisan kedua, pembentukan Bawaslu, KPPU dan KIP berada diluar sistem peradilan di Indonesia. Namun pada dasarnya lembaga-lembaga Negara independen ini melakukan fungsi campuran dengan sifatnya yang penunjang terhadap lembaga Negara utama untuk menjalankan fungsi regulatif dan administratif termasuk fungsi quasi judicial dalam melaksanakan tugas dan kewenangannya. Dalam menjalankan fungsi kekuasaan quasi judicial yang dilakukan oleh Bawaslu secara umum telah memenuhi karakter kekuasaan quasi judicial yang dirumuskan oleh Jimly Asshiddqie.

---

This thesis discusses the institutional review of Bawaslu with quasi-judicial or semi-judicial authority in solving electoral legal problems in administrative violations and electoral process disputes in the 2019 elections. This research is a normative legal research using library studies and interviews in data collection, then data- the data obtained were analyzed using a qualitative legal approach. Constitutionally, the formation of Bawaslu as a unified function of the administration of elections in Indonesia is based on Article 22 E paragraph (5) of the 1945 Constitution and is strengthened based on the Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 11 / PUU-VIII / 2010. Article 22 E paragraph (5) of the 1945 Constitution confirms that the election organizer is independent. In practice, Bawaslu has fulfilled its characteristics as an independent or independent State institution based on the basis of its formation. As an independent state institution, Bawaslu in an administrative manner is possible to have the authority to carry out the quasi judicial function. It is known that in the development of state institutions after the amendment to the 1945 Constitution, in addition to Bawaslu there are other independent state institutions that have authority with quasi-judicial functions. Such institutions include the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU) and the Public Information Commission (KIP). As the second layer state institution, the formation of Bawaslu, KPPU and KIP is outside the justice system in Indonesia. However, basically these independent state institutions perform a mixed function with their supporting nature to the main State institutions to carry out regulatory and administrative functions including quasi judicial functions in carrying out their duties and authorities. In carrying out the functions of quasi judicial power carried out by Bawaslu in general it has fulfilled the character of quasi judicial power formulated by Jimly Asshiddqie."