Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"[ABSTRAKPengujian norma konkret dalam putusan pengujian undang-undang terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 pada dasarnya tidak menjadi kewenangan MK. Pengujian terhadap norma secara teoritis haruslah bertitiktolak dari norma abstrak sebagai implikasi kedudukan MK yang menjadi pengadilan norma dan mengujinya terhadap konstitusi. Untuk menilai konstitusionalitas norma undang-undang, maka norma abstraklah yang seharusnya ditafsirkan oleh MK. Sedangkan norma konkret lebih menitikberatkan implementasi atau penerapan dari norma itu sendiri. Penerapan norma tidak dapat dilepaskan dari legalitas norma, sedangkan konstitusionalitas norma adalah menguji kebersesuain norma tesebut dengan konstitusi. Apabila landasan pengujian norma adalah Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 maka norma abstrak yang seharusnya menjadi materi utama untuk diuji. Sebaliknya ketika norma konkret yang akan diuji, maka yang harus dipertimbangkan juga adalah penerapan dari norma tersebut yang sudah sudah masuk dalam kasus konkret yang terjadi. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan kasus (case approach) yaitu 15 (lima belas) putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi sepanjang 2003-2013 dalam pengujian undang-undang terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 secara materiil yang memfokuskan pada ratio decidendi hakim konstitusi dalam menentukan konstitusionalitas norma. Hasil penelitian ini menujukkan bahwa MK dalam menguji undang-undang terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 tidak memisahkan secara dikotomis antara norma abtrak dan norma konkret. Dalam upaya melindungai hak-hak konstitusional warga negara, tidak adanya upaya hukum lanjutan yang akan ditempuh oleh Pemohon, serta untuk memberikan kepastian hukum yang adil, MK mengabulkan pengujian norma konkret. Meskipun MK tetap tegas menyatakan bahwa hal tersebut adalah norma konkret, sehingga permohonan pemohon hanya dikabulkan sebagian pada pengujian norma abstraknya saja. Sedangkan dalam hal putusan MK yang menolak pengujian norma konkret karena norma yang diujikan bukanlah persoalan konstitusionalitas norma melainkan penerapan norma dan permintaan putusan provisi (putusan sela) yang tidak relevan dengan pokok perkara. Pengujian norma konkret dalam putusan menolak adalah bentuk kehatian-hatian MK agar tidak mengadili perkara yang menjadi kewenangan peradilan lain yaitu Mahkamah Agung serta peradilan di bawahnya. Adapun terkait putusan yang menyatakan tidak dapat diterima, MK menyatakan bahwa Pemohon tidak memiliki kedudukan hukum serta MK tidak memiliki kewenangan untuk menguji norma tersebut. Akhirnya, ke depan MK dalam perlu menegaskan perihal kedudukan norma sebelum melakukan pemeriksaan lebih mendalam terhadap permohonan yang diajukan. Di samping itu MK perlu diberikan kewenangan pengaduan konstitusional (constitutional complaint) atau pertanyaan konstittusional (constitutional question) sehingga terciptanya harmonisasi penafsiran berdasarkan konstitusi.

---

ABSTRACTThe review of conrete norms in the decision of judicial review of laws against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia basically does not constitute authority of the Constitutional Court. Theoretically, norms review should be starting from abstract norms as the implications of the Constitutional Court authority. In order to review the constitutionality of laws, norms and abstract norms should be interpreted by the Constitutional Court. While concrete norms focuse more on the implementation or application of the norm itself. The application of norms cannot be separated from the legality of the norms, while constitutionality of norms is related to its coherence with with the Constitution. If the basis of norms review is the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia then abstract norms should be the main subject matter to be reviewed. Otherwise, when concrete norms are the subject matters to be reviewed, then the implementation of the norms that have been applied in concrete cases. This research is using normative juridical method with case approach in which 15 (fifteen) verdicts of the Constitutional Court of Republic of Indonesia over the period of 2003-2013 in judicial review of laws against the 1945 Constitution are analyzed. The focus is on the ratio decidendi of the Constitutional Court judges in determining the constitutionality of norms. The result of this research shows that, the Constitutional Court, in the judicial review of laws against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia does not separate abstract norms and concrete norms dichotomously. In an attempt to protect the constitutional rights of citizens, the absence of legal remedies that can be further pursued by the applicant, as well as to provide legal certainty, the Constitutional Court, granted, in its decision, the review of concrete norms. Even though the Constitutional Court remains firm in satting that it is a concrete norm, the applicant's petition is granted in part which is concerning the review the abstract norms only. Whereas, with respect to the verdict of the constitutional court that rejected the review of concrete norms, it is because the review is not on the constitutionality of norms but the application of the norms and also concerns a petition for an interlocutory decision which is irrelevant to the subject matter of the case. The review of concrete norms in a rejecting ruling is a form of prudence by the Constitutional Court in order not to prosecute the matters which constitute the authority the other judicial bodies, namely the Supreme Court and the lower courts. As for the ruling which declared a petition inadmissible, the Constitutional Court stated that the applicant has no legal standing and the Constitutional Court does not have the authority to test these norms. Finally, in the future, the Constitutional Court needs to affirm the status of norms before further examining in depth the petition filed. In addition, the Constitutional Court should be conferred with the authority to hear constitutional complaint and constitutional question in order to create the harmonization of interpretation based on the Constitution.;The review of conrete norms in the decision of judicial review of laws against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia basically does not constitute authority of the Constitutional Court. Theoretically, norms review should be starting from abstract norms as the implications of the Constitutional Court authority. In order to review the constitutionality of laws, norms and abstract norms should be interpreted by the Constitutional Court. While concrete norms focuse more on the implementation or application of the norm itself. The application of norms cannot be separated from the legality of the norms, while constitutionality of norms is related to its coherence with with the Constitution. If the basis of norms review is the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia then abstract norms should be the main subject matter to be reviewed. Otherwise, when concrete norms are the subject matters to be reviewed, then the implementation of the norms that have been applied in concrete cases. This research is using normative juridical method with case approach in which 15 (fifteen) verdicts of the Constitutional Court of Republic of Indonesia over the period of 2003-2013 in judicial review of laws against the 1945 Constitution are analyzed. The focus is on the ratio decidendi of the Constitutional Court judges in determining the constitutionality of norms. The result of this research shows that, the Constitutional Court, in the judicial review of laws against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia does not separate abstract norms and concrete norms dichotomously. In an attempt to protect the constitutional rights of citizens, the absence of legal remedies that can be further pursued by the applicant, as well as to provide legal certainty, the Constitutional Court, granted, in its decision, the review of concrete norms. Even though the Constitutional Court remains firm in satting that it is a concrete norm, the applicant's petition is granted in part which is concerning the review the abstract norms only. Whereas, with respect to the verdict of the constitutional court that rejected the review of concrete norms, it is because the review is not on the constitutionality of norms but the application of the norms and also concerns a petition for an interlocutory decision which is irrelevant to the subject matter of the case. The review of concrete norms in a rejecting ruling is a form of prudence by the Constitutional Court in order not to prosecute the matters which constitute the authority the other judicial bodies, namely the Supreme Court and the lower courts. As for the ruling which declared a petition inadmissible, the Constitutional Court stated that the applicant has no legal standing and the Constitutional Court does not have the authority to test these norms. Finally, in the future, the Constitutional Court needs to affirm the status of norms before further examining in depth the petition filed. In addition, the Constitutional Court should be conferred with the authority to hear constitutional complaint and constitutional question in order to create the harmonization of interpretation based on the Constitution.;The review of conrete norms in the decision of judicial review of laws against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia basically does not constitute authority of the Constitutional Court. Theoretically, norms review should be starting from abstract norms as the implications of the Constitutional Court authority. In order to review the constitutionality of laws, norms and abstract norms should be interpreted by the Constitutional Court. While concrete norms focuse more on the implementation or application of the norm itself. The application of norms cannot be separated from the legality of the norms, while constitutionality of norms is related to its coherence with with the Constitution. If the basis of norms review is the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia then abstract norms should be the main subject matter to be reviewed. Otherwise, when concrete norms are the subject matters to be reviewed, then the implementation of the norms that have been applied in concrete cases. This research is using normative juridical method with case approach in which 15 (fifteen) verdicts of the Constitutional Court of Republic of Indonesia over the period of 2003-2013 in judicial review of laws against the 1945 Constitution are analyzed. The focus is on the ratio decidendi of the Constitutional Court judges in determining the constitutionality of norms. The result of this research shows that, the Constitutional Court, in the judicial review of laws against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia does not separate abstract norms and concrete norms dichotomously. In an attempt to protect the constitutional rights of citizens, the absence of legal remedies that can be further pursued by the applicant, as well as to provide legal certainty, the Constitutional Court, granted, in its decision, the review of concrete norms. Even though the Constitutional Court remains firm in satting that it is a concrete norm, the applicant's petition is granted in part which is concerning the review the abstract norms only. Whereas, with respect to the verdict of the constitutional court that rejected the review of concrete norms, it is because the review is not on the constitutionality of norms but the application of the norms and also concerns a petition for an interlocutory decision which is irrelevant to the subject matter of the case. The review of concrete norms in a rejecting ruling is a form of prudence by the Constitutional Court in order not to prosecute the matters which constitute the authority the other judicial bodies, namely the Supreme Court and the lower courts. As for the ruling which declared a petition inadmissible, the Constitutional Court stated that the applicant has no legal standing and the Constitutional Court does not have the authority to test these norms. Finally, in the future, the Constitutional Court needs to affirm the status of norms before further examining in depth the petition filed. In addition, the Constitutional Court should be conferred with the authority to hear constitutional complaint and constitutional question in order to create the harmonization of interpretation based on the Constitution.;The review of conrete norms in the decision of judicial review of laws against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia basically does not constitute authority of the Constitutional Court. Theoretically, norms review should be starting from abstract norms as the implications of the Constitutional Court authority. In order to review the constitutionality of laws, norms and abstract norms should be interpreted by the Constitutional Court. While concrete norms focuse more on the implementation or application of the norm itself. The application of norms cannot be separated from the legality of the norms, while constitutionality of norms is related to its coherence with with the Constitution. If the basis of norms review is the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia then abstract norms should be the main subject matter to be reviewed. Otherwise, when concrete norms are the subject matters to be reviewed, then the implementation of the norms that have been applied in concrete cases. This research is using normative juridical method with case approach in which 15 (fifteen) verdicts of the Constitutional Court of Republic of Indonesia over the period of 2003-2013 in judicial review of laws against the 1945 Constitution are analyzed. The focus is on the ratio decidendi of the Constitutional Court judges in determining the constitutionality of norms. The result of this research shows that, the Constitutional Court, in the judicial review of laws against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia does not separate abstract norms and concrete norms dichotomously. In an attempt to protect the constitutional rights of citizens, the absence of legal remedies that can be further pursued by the applicant, as well as to provide legal certainty, the Constitutional Court, granted, in its decision, the review of concrete norms. Even though the Constitutional Court remains firm in satting that it is a concrete norm, the applicant's petition is granted in part which is concerning the review the abstract norms only. Whereas, with respect to the verdict of the constitutional court that rejected the review of concrete norms, it is because the review is not on the constitutionality of norms but the application of the norms and also concerns a petition for an interlocutory decision which is irrelevant to the subject matter of the case. The review of concrete norms in a rejecting ruling is a form of prudence by the Constitutional Court in order not to prosecute the matters which constitute the authority the other judicial bodies, namely the Supreme Court and the lower courts. As for the ruling which declared a petition inadmissible, the Constitutional Court stated that the applicant has no legal standing and the Constitutional Court does not have the authority to test these norms. Finally, in the future, the Constitutional Court needs to affirm the status of norms before further examining in depth the petition filed. In addition, the Constitutional Court should be conferred with the authority to hear constitutional complaint and constitutional question in order to create the harmonization of interpretation based on the Constitution., The review of conrete norms in the decision of judicial review of laws against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia basically does not constitute authority of the Constitutional Court. Theoretically, norms review should be starting from abstract norms as the implications of the Constitutional Court authority. In order to review the constitutionality of laws, norms and abstract norms should be interpreted by the Constitutional Court. While concrete norms focuse more on the implementation or application of the norm itself. The application of norms cannot be separated from the legality of the norms, while constitutionality of norms is related to its coherence with with the Constitution. If the basis of norms review is the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia then abstract norms should be the main subject matter to be reviewed. Otherwise, when concrete norms are the subject matters to be reviewed, then the implementation of the norms that have been applied in concrete cases. This research is using normative juridical method with case approach in which 15 (fifteen) verdicts of the Constitutional Court of Republic of Indonesia over the period of 2003-2013 in judicial review of laws against the 1945 Constitution are analyzed. The focus is on the ratio decidendi of the Constitutional Court judges in determining the constitutionality of norms. The result of this research shows that, the Constitutional Court, in the judicial review of laws against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia does not separate abstract norms and concrete norms dichotomously. In an attempt to protect the constitutional rights of citizens, the absence of legal remedies that can be further pursued by the applicant, as well as to provide legal certainty, the Constitutional Court, granted, in its decision, the review of concrete norms. Even though the Constitutional Court remains firm in satting that it is a concrete norm, the applicant's petition is granted in part which is concerning the review the abstract norms only. Whereas, with respect to the verdict of the constitutional court that rejected the review of concrete norms, it is because the review is not on the constitutionality of norms but the application of the norms and also concerns a petition for an interlocutory decision which is irrelevant to the subject matter of the case. The review of concrete norms in a rejecting ruling is a form of prudence by the Constitutional Court in order not to prosecute the matters which constitute the authority the other judicial bodies, namely the Supreme Court and the lower courts. As for the ruling which declared a petition inadmissible, the Constitutional Court stated that the applicant has no legal standing and the Constitutional Court does not have the authority to test these norms. Finally, in the future, the Constitutional Court needs to affirm the status of norms before further examining in depth the petition filed. In addition, the Constitutional Court should be conferred with the authority to hear constitutional complaint and constitutional question in order to create the harmonization of interpretation based on the Constitution.]"

"Disertasi ini membahas mengenai desentralisasi asimetrik dalam negara kesatuan ditinjau dari perspektif perkembangan ketatanegaraan Indonesia: studi terhadap format pengaturan asimetrik di Yogyakarta, Aceh dan Papua dalam periode 1950 sampai 2012. Dalam penelitian ini, dikaji dan dianalisis mengenai penerapan desentralisasi asimetrik di Yogyakarta, Aceh dan Papua ditinjau dari perspektif elemen-elemen dasar pemerintahan daerah meliputi: (1) urusan dan kewenangan, (2) kelembagaan (3) personil (4) sumber keuangan (5) perwakilan (6) pelayanan publik, (7) pembinaan dan pengawasan. Permasalahan yang dikaji adalah (1) apakah kebijakan otonomi khusus dalam perspektif praktik ketatanegaraan Indonesia hanya diberikan kepada Yogyakarta, Aceh dan Papua. (2) penerapan desentralisasi asimetrik dapat menciptakan percepatan dan pencapaian tujuan demokratisasi ditinjau dari perspektif elemen dasar pemerintahan daerah. (3) strategi penerapan desentralisasi asimetrik di Yogyakarta, Aceh dan Papua ditinjau dari perspektif elemen dasar pemerintahan daerah dapat mempercepat kesejahteraan masyarakat. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian hukum normatif (legal research) dan penelitian empiris dengan titik berat pada penelitian normatif. Sedangkan pengumpulan data yang dilakukan dengan studi dokumen dan wawancara. Data tersebut kemudian dianalisis secara kualitatif.Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa perundang-undangan yang mengatur otonomi khusus/istimewa (1950-2012) dalam praktiknya masih memperlihatkan pola sentralistik yang dominan dalam menerapkan elemen-elemen dasar pemerintahan daerah. Kebijakan desentralisasi asimetrik yang dipraktikkan di ketiga daerah tersebut memiliki karakter asimetrik yang berbeda-beda dalam menerapkan elemen-elemen dasar pemerintahan daerah sesuai karakter perundang-undangan yang berlaku di ketiga daerah tersebut. Perbedaan tersebut dalam hal pengaturan tentang urusan dan kewenangan, kelembagaan, perwakilan dan sistem pemilihan kepala daerah, kebijakan fiskal dan pelayanan publik. Perbedaan asimetrik lainnya adalah, Yogya lebih didasarkan pada alasan historically driven with some culturally oriented goals, Aceh lebih didasarkan pada alasan politically driven with religiously oriented goals dan Papua lebih di dasarkan pada alasan politically driven with slight religiously oriented goals. Meskipun terdapat perbedaan penerapan berbagai elemen dasar pemerintahan daerah tersebut di atas, namun kebijakan asimetrik yang diberikan kepada ketiga daerah tersebut dalam kenyataannya lebih dititikberatkan pada kebijakan fiskal. Dengan kebijakan fiskal yang besar dapat tersebut diharapkan membawa perubahan yang siginifikan dalam penyelenggaraan pemerintahan, pembangunan dan kemasyarakatan. Namun, dalam kenyataannya titikberat kebijakan fiskal yang besar tersebut tidak diikuti dengan penerapan elemen-elemen dasar pemerintahan daerah sehingga dalam penyelenggaraan pemerintahan belum dapat memberikan manfaat dan perubahan yang signifikan, terutama dalam upaya peningkatan kesejahteraan dan kemakmuran masyarakat dan percepatan pencapaian tujuan demokrasi dan demokratisasi.Temuan yang diperoleh dari hasil penelitian sebagai jawaban terhadap research quetions dari penelitian adalah, bahwa kebijakan desentralisasi asimetrik yang diberikan kepada Yogyakarta, Aceh dan Papua lebih dititikberatkan pada kebijakan fiskal yang didasarkan pada pertimbangan politik (politicaly driven) tanpa adanya suatu grand design atau blue print kebijakan asimetrik secara menyeluruh berdasarkan elemen-elemen dasar Pemerintahan Daerah. Ketujuh elemen dasar di atas, secara integrated merupakan alat tools untuk melihat substansi asimetrik untuk meningkatkan kesejahteraan dan kemakmuran masyarakat. Ketujuh elemen dasar pemerintahan daerah tersebut dipakai sebagai tools untuk mempertajam penerapan desentralisasi asimetrik di ketiga daerah tersebut di atas. Penataan terhadap elemen-elemen dasar tersebut haruslah bersifat terpadu dan menyeluruh, pendekatan yang bersifat piece-meal yang dilakukan akan selalu menghasilkan outcomes yang kurang optimal bahkan seringkali menimbulkan ketegangan antara Pusat dan Daerah. Oleh karena itu, dalam perkembangan praktik ketatanegaraan Indonesia di masa yang akan datang manakala pemerintah masih memberikan kebijakan-kebijakan yang bersifat khusus/istimewa terhadap daerah lain di Indonesia sebagai solusi politik dalam mempertahankan integritas negara kesatuan, maka diperlukan penataan terhadap ketujuh elemen dasar pemerintahan daerah tersebut merupakan suatu keniscayaan yang perlu diatur dalam payung hukum dalam bentuk perundang-undangan. Hal ini disebabkan karena desentralisasi asimetrik dalam perspektif negara kesatuan Republik Indonesia telah memiliki landasan konstitusional dalam Pasal 18B ayat (1) UUD 1945. Ketentuan tersebut dapat saja dijadikan rujukan bagi Daerah lainnya di Indonesia untuk meminta status khusus atau keistimewaan yang sama seperti yang diberikan kepada Yogyakarta, Aceh dan Papua, mengingat ketentuan Pasal 18B ayat (1) UUD 1945 tersebut masih menimbulkan multi tafsir sehingga perlu dipertegas kembali makna ketentuan tersebut, manakala Pemerintah bermaksud akan melakukan amandemen kelima terhadap UUD 1945.

---

This study discusses asymmetrical decentralization in a unitary state viewed from the perspectives of Indonesian constitutional development. It focuses on the format of asymmetrical arrangements for Yogyakarta, Aceh, and Papua during the period of 1950 through 2012. It analyzes the specific asymmetrical characteristics of the special autonomy for the three provinces based on the 7 basic elements of a local government which comprise of: (1) local authority; (2) local institutions (3) personnel/staffing; (4) local sources of revenue, (5) representation and election system of regents, (6) public services, and (7) guidance and supervision. Specifically the issue analyzed here in this study include: (1) why the special autonomy in the perspective of the constitutional development given only to Yogyakarta, Aceh, and Papua and (2) whether the implementation of asymmetrical decentralization expected to accelerate democracy improvement and the realization of a democratic life, viewed from the perspective of the basic elements of local government, and (3) how this strategy of implementing asymmetric decentralization in Yogyakarta, Aceh, and Papua viewed from the perspective of the basic elements of local government can expedite welfare. This is a normatively legal study with a historical approach. The data collection was done through document study and interviews. The collected data were then analyzed qualitatively.The study found that various types of local government regulations in Indonesia including the special autonomy regulations (1950-2012) in practice still indicate traces of centralistic patterns in implementing the local government elements. Through broad observation, the three provinces are seen to have differed slightly. The asymmetrical arrangements for Yogyakarta have been historically driven with some culturally oriented objectives; the asymmetrical arrangements for Aceh have been religiously driven through political maneuvers; and the asymmetrical arrangements for Papua have been politically driven with ethnic and some slight religiously oriented purposes. This discussion has been done in light of a local government elements and the implementation of asymmetric decentralization based on the local government elements. The asymmetric decentralizations implemented in three provinces have distinctive asymmetric features. They have not fully followed the asymmetric features found in the special autonomy regulations for these three provinces. The differences may be observed in the arrangements of authorization, institutions, representation and election system of regents, fiscal policies, and public services. Despite the above differences, the asymmetrical arrangements given to these three provinces have been heavily focused on fiscal policies ? which have been meant to bring about significant improvements in the running of the local governments, i.e. improvements of public services. In reality, the special autonomy has not resulted in significant improvements, particularly in the betterment of social welfare and the acceleration to reach democracy and democratization.In summary, the asymmetrical decentralization granted for these three provinces in the form of heavily fiscal advantages, have been more politically driven without grand design or blue print of comprehensive asymmetric decentralization policy, which should have been strictly based on the local government elements. The seven basic elements are an integral tool to view the asymmetric substance to enhance prosperity and welfare of the people. The seven basic elements are utilized as tools to sharpen the implementation of asymmetric decentralization in the three regents above. Arrangement of the basic elements should be integrated and comprehensive; a piece-meal approach would always create outcomes less optimal or even cause tension between Central and Regions. Therefore, in the constitutional practices in the future, especially considering the central government still grants special policies to other regions in Indonesia as a political solution to maintain the integrity of the unitary state, then it is necessary to better arrange the seven basic elements of local governments under an umbrella law in the form of special regulations. As one may observe, asymmetrical decentralization is found in the Constitution 1945, Article 18B verse (1). It is possible for other regions in Indonesia to request special status such that granted to Yogyakarta, Aceh and Papua, remembering the Constitution 1945, Article 18B verse (1) still create multiple interpretations, such that it needs reinforcement the meaning of that clause, should the Government want to do the Fifth amendment of the Constitution 1945."