Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Mahkamah Konstitusi adalah salah satu pelaku kekuasaan kehakiman yang bersifat mandiri dengan posisi yang sejajar dengan Mahkamah Agung. Mahkamah Konstitusi berfungsi melakukan kekuasaan yang merdeka untuk menyelengarakan peradilan guna menegakkan hukum dan keadilan. Secara teoritis Mahkamah Konstitusi berfungsi sebagai pengawdl konstitusi, sebagai penafsir konstitusi, pelindung hak konstitusional warga negara, sebagai pelindung hak asasi manusia dan sebagai pengimbang demokrasi.Fungsi-fungsi tersebut diterapkan dalam melaksanakan empat wewenangnya dan satu kewajiban Mahkamah Konstitusi, yaitu menguji undang-undang terhadap UUD RI 1945; memutus sengketa kewenangan antar lembaga negara yang kewenangannya diberikan oleh UUD RI 1945; memutus pembubaran partai politik; memutus perselisihan tentang hasil pemilu; dan memberi putusan atas pendapat Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat bahwa Presiden dan atau Wakil Presiden diduga telah melakukan pelanggaran hukum berupa penghianatan terhadap negara, korupsi, penyuapan, tindak pidana beret lainnya, atau perbuatan tercela, dan/atau tidak lagi memenuhi syarat sebagai Presiden dan/atau Wakil Presiden.Mahkamah Konstitusi berusaha untuk menjadi penyeimbang dalam hubungan antar lembaga negara, sehingga Mahkamah Konstitusi berada di tengah-tengah mekanisme hubungan antar lembaga negara. Posisi tersebut terkait dengan bertambahnya lembaga-lembaga baru pasca reformasi dan juga peran Mahkamah Konstitusi sebagai pemegang wewenang menyangkut sengketa kewenangan lembaga negara.

---

The Constitutional Court is one of Indonesia independent judicial power with the same level position as the Supreme Court. The Constitutional Court is an independent authority in enforcing justice in order to uphold the law. Theoretically, the Constitutional Court functions as the guardian of the constitution, as the sole interpreter of the constitution, as the protector of human rights, as the protector of the citizens' constitutional rights, and as The Agent of Control of Democracy.These functions are applied in implementing its four authorities and one obligation of the Constitutional Court, namely to verify the legislation against the 1945 Constitution of Republic of Indonesia; to settle the disperse of political parties; to settle the dispute on the outcome of general election; and to provide a decision on the judgment of House of Representatives that the President and/or Vice President is allegedly committed a breach of law in the form of betrayal against the nation, corruption, bribery, other extreme criminal acts, or unlawful acts, and/or does not any longer meet the requirement as the President and/or Vice President.Constitutional Court seeks to serve as a balancer of inter-institutions relationship. The position is related to the existence of new post-reform national institutions and also to the role of Constitutional Court as the authority in matter relating to the authority related dispute between the national institutions."

"INTRODUCTION America is a country of laws rather than of men. Laws that are agreed on by representatives of the people, implemented by the government and reviewed for their legal constitutionality by judges of the Supreme Court rule America. These laws must conform to certain broad principles of moral justice. They then govern the actions of the population of America. Since laws govern the actions of the people, they must be stable. Judges of the court who apply laws to existing cases are expected to make consistent decisions. They should do so and must also bear in their minds that the decisions they made might be referred to as precedents when other judges decide cases of similar type. "Stability of laws and consistency of decisions are basic values of our judicial system", said Harold O. Berman in his article, "Philosophical Aspects of American Law", broadcast by the Voice of America (Berman, 1973:323). In 1936, the Supreme Court, by 5 to 4 vote-in the case of Morehead v. New York ex rel. Tipaldo. 298 U.S. 587 (1936) invalidated a statute of the state of New York prescribing minimum wages for women and children. But only one year later, the Supreme Court upheld a Washington State minimum wage law. The Supreme Court not only chanced its decision of 1936 but also repudiated the then prevailing interpretation of the due process clause of the United States Constitution. Before 1973 the due process clauses were traditionally used to curb legislation of the social welfare type. Since then, "no federal, and relatively few state, laws of this type have been declared unconstitutional on the due process ground" (Carr, 1961: 95). The above Court's inconsistent decision has greatly attracted my attention to write this thesis. It seems to me that some of the American Supreme Court's decisions in the course of the first two terms of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt had to be accordingly adjusted in response to deep social and political demands of the changing times and conditions. Dexter Perkins quoted an assertion of President Roosevelt's supporters saying, "if the President lost the battle, he won the war, that if his legislation failed, he had the satisfaction of seeing the Court bend to the spirit of the times". Perkins further wrote: "History itself demonstrates that our highest tribunal will suffer grievously in prestige and power if it fails to conform to the spirit of the times" (Perkins, 1957:61-63). This thesis will examine some factors affecting reversals of the Supreme Court's decisions during the first two terms of President Roosevelt. Perhaps these decisions, which became controversial at the times, had to be made in response to social and political pressures. It might also be possible that these decisions had been influenced by the Supreme Court's justices' personal values and orientations, the state of the law applicable to each of the selected cases, the interaction among its members and other external factors, which will be discussed in detail in Chapter III and Chapter IV. "

"Skripsi ini bertujuan untuk menjelaskan dan menganalisis tentang peran Mahkamah Konstitusi sebagai Positive Legislator dan implikasinya terhadap proses legislasi di Indonesia. Penulis mempergunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif dengan studi kepustakaan yang menggabungkan teori pemisahan kekuasaan, fiilosofi pembentukan peradilan konstitusi, konsep negara hukum dengan proses legislasi di Indonesia. Putusan No. 10/PUU-VI/2008 menunjukkan Mahkamah Konstitusi di Indonesia telah berperan sebagai positive legislator (pemuat norma) yang menimbulkan banyak perdebatan secara akademis. Hal ini sejalan dengan perkembangan di beberapa negara yang memungkinkan adanya peran peradilan konstitusinya sebagai positive legislator dalam menjamin hak-hak warga negara. Selain itu, dapat dilihat bagaimana implikasi dari tindakan Mahkamah Konstitusi yang mencantumkan syarat domisili calon anggota DPD terhadap proses legislasi yang dipegang oleh DPR dan Presiden (termasuk DPD).

---

The purpose of this thesis is to explain and analyse the role of Constitutional Court as Positive Legislator and its implications toward the legislation process in Indonesia. The writer uses the juridical-normative research method alongside bibliographic study which mixes separation of power theory, the forming of constitutional tribunal philosophy, the state of law concept with the legislation process in Indonesia. From the Judgment No.10/PUU-VI/2008, it can be concluded that the Indonesian Constitutional Court has its role as a positive legislator. This is consistent with the developments among some States which permit the existence of a role of a positive legislator from a constitutional tribunal in guaranteeing the rights of citizens. Besides, this thesis will bring into focus the implications from the acts of Constitutional Court which has the domicile requirements written down for the candidates of DPD to the legislation process which is held by DPR and the President (including the DPD)."

"Dalam penelitian ini, penulis akan membahas mengenai Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 yang dibelakangi oleh adanya permohonan uji materil atas ketentuan Pasal 15 ayat (2) dan (3) Undang-Undang No. 42 Tahun 1999 tentang Jaminan Fidusia, yang mengatur mengenai kekuatan eksekutorial atas Sertifikat Jaminan Fidusia serta hak parate eksekusi yang dimiliki Penerima Fidusia. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 telah mengabulkan permohonan uji materil untuk sebagian dan menyatakan bahwa ketentuan Pasal 15 ayat (2) dan (3) tidak mengikat apabila tidak ada kesepakatan tentang cidera janji (wanprestasi) dan debitur keberatan menyerahkan secara sukarela objek jaminan Fidusia sehingga eksekusi harus dilakukan dan berlaku sama dengan pelaksanaan eksekusi putusan pengadilan yang telah berkekuatan hukum tetap, serta cidera janji (wanprestasi) tidak ditentukan secara sepihak oleh kreditur namun harus berdasarkan kesepakatan debitur dan kreditur atau adanya upaya hukum yang menentukan telah terjadi cidera janji (wanprestasi). Penelitian ini akan berfokus kepada pengaturan mengenai pelaksanaan hak parate eksekusi yang melekat dalam setiap bentuk jaminan kebendaan dan implikasi/dampak dari terbitnya Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 terhadap pelaksanaan eksekusi jaminan Fidusia. Untuk dapat menjelaskan permasalahan pokok dari penelitian ini maka dipergunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif, yang menekankan kepada penggunaan norma-norma hukum secara tertulis yaitu norma peraturan perundang-undangan (statute approach) dan pendekatan kasus (case approach) berdasarkan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019. Berdasarkan analisis diketahui bahwa Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 telah menimbulkan beberapa dampak seperti hilangnya hak khusus yang dimiliki jaminan Fidusia, hilangnya kepercayaan kreditur untuk menyalurkan kredit, adanya potensi biaya eksekusi yang besar, timbulnya kemungkinan adanya itikad tidak baik dari debitur, Pengadilan Negeri akan terbebani dengan banyaknya permohonan gugatan wanprestasi yang diajukan, dan menjadi tidak berlakunya Peraturan Kepala Polisi Republik Indonesia No. 8 Tahun 2011 tentang Pengamanan Eksekusi Jaminan Fidusia.

---

In this research, the author will discuss the Constitutional Court Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 based on the request for a judicial review of the provision of Article 15 paragraph (2) and (3) of Law No. 42 of 1999 on Fiduciary Guaranty, which regulates the executorial power of the Fiduciary Guaranty Certificate and parate execution right owned by the Fiduciary Recipient. Constitutional Court Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 has granted a partial judicial review request and stated that the provision of Article 15 paragraph (2) and (3) are not binding if there is no agreement on breach of contract (default) and the debtor refuse to voluntary hand over the object of Fiduciary Guaranty, therefore the execution shall be carried out and apply the same as the execution of court decision which already obtain a permanent legal force, and also a breach of contract (default) shall not be determined unilaterally by the creditor but must be based on the agreement of the debtor ad creditor or there is a legal remedy which determines that there has been a breach of contract (default). This study will focus on the regulation regarding the implementation of the parate execution rights in every form of secured transaction and the implications/impacts of the issuance of the Constitutional Court Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 on the execution of Fiduciary Guaranty. To be able to explain the main problems of this research, a normative judicial research method is used, which emphasizes the use of written legal norms, namely the statute approach and the case approach based on Constitutional Court Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019. Based on the analysis, it is known that the Constitutional Court Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 has caused several impacts such as the loss of special rights held by Fiduciary Guaranty, namely the loss of creditor trust to give credits, the potential for large execution costs, the possibility of bad faith from the debtor, the District Court will be burdened with many lawsuit filled for default, and the Regulation of the Chief of Police of the Republic of Indonesia No. 8 of 2011 on the Safeguarding of the Execution of Fiduciary Guarantee."

"Skripsi ini membahas kewenangan Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK) dalam memutus perselisihan Pemilukada berdasarkan UU Pemerintahan Daerah. Namun MK melaksanakannya tidak mendasarkan pada UU. Skripsi ini mengambil studi kasus putusan MK atas perselisihan Pemilukada di Kota Jayapura. Permasalahannya bagaimana MK menjalankan kewenangan memutus perselisihan Pemilukada dan apakah bakal pasangan calon dapat diterima sebagai pemohon dalam perselisihan Pemilukada. Penulis menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif, dengan menggunakan data sekunder. Penelitian ini menyimpulkan bahwa MK menjalankan kewenangan dengan memegang prinsip hukum dan keadilan, sehingga mengutamakan keadilan substantif. Demi menegakan keadilan substantif, MK mendasarkan kewenangannya pada UUD NRI Tahun 1945. Apabila MK hanya mendasarkan pada UU, maka keadilan prosedural akan menyampingkan keadilan substantif, yang kemudian akan menjadikan MK berwenang mengadili seluruh pelanggaran yang terjadi dalam proses Pemilukada yang mempengaruhi hasil Pemilukada. Dengan kewenangan tersebut, maka MK dapat memeriksa sejak penetapan daftar pemilih pada kasus Kota Jayapura. Dengan adanya pemohon yang merupakan bakal pasangan calon, MK perlu menggunakan interpretasi ekstensif untuk memberikan kedudukan hukum. MK memberikan kedudukan hukum tersebut demi menegakan keadilan substantif dan menjamin hak konstitusional warganegara karena pada dasarnya bakal pasangan calon secara materiil merupakan peserta Pemilukada berdasarkan putusan PTUN yang berkekuatan hukum tetap. Bakal pasangan calon juga dapat menjadikan putusan PTUN sebagai alat bukti otentik di persidangan. Penulis juga mendapat kesimpulan bahwa MK menganut aliran Interessenjurisprudenz dalam melakukan penemuan hukum, dimana hakim konstitusi mencari dan menemukan keadilan dalam batas kaidah-kaidah yang telah ditentukan. MK juga menjadikan putusan-putusannya sebagai yurisprudensi untuk menerapkan pada perkara yang sejenis.

---

This paper discusses the authority of the Constitutional Court to decide election disputes according to Local Government Act. However, the Constitutional Court does not refer to the Act on asserting its authority. This paper takes a case study of the Constitutional Court verdict on Election dispute in Jayapura. The problem is how to assert the Constitutional Court‟s authority to decide Election disputes and whether the pre-candidates would be accepted as party in the election dispute. The author uses the method of legal normative research, using secondary data. This research concluded that the Constitutional Court implement the principle in law and justice so that substantial justice will be taken as first priority. For the sake of upholding the substantial justice, the Constitutional Court refers its authority on the Constitution. If the Constitutional Court only refers to the Act, the procedural justice will rule aside substantive justice, which makes Constitutional Court has the authority to examine all violations in the Election process which could influence the Election result. With such authority, the Constitutional Court is able to examine since the enlistment of voters in Jayapura case. With the existence of such plaintiff, which is a pre-candidate, the Constitutional Court ought to interpretes extensively to grant legal standing to these plaintiffs. The Constitutional Court grants them the legal standing in order to uphold substantive justice and ensure the constitutional rights of citizens because pre-candidate substantively will be a participant in the Election based on the final and binding verdict of the Administrative Court. Pre-candidates will also be able to use its verdict as an authentic evidence in the trial. The author also concludes that the Constitutional Court adopts Interessenjurisprudenz idea on legal finding, in which the constitutional judges look for and find justice within the limits of established norms. The Constitutional Court also deduces its verdicts as the case law to be applied in other similar case(s)."