[ABSTRAK Kekuasaan dan kewenangan Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat (DPR) yang kuatakibat perubahan UUD 1945 dapat dilihat dalam desain skema keterlibatan DPR padapengisian sejumlah jabatan publik yang terbilang strategis. Dalam perubahan UUD1945 dikenal 3 (tiga) bentuk pengangkatan pejabat publik yang melibatkan DPR,yakni melalui pertimbangan, persetujuan dan pemilihan. Pada awalnya urgensi suatupengangkatan pejabat publik memerlukan campur tangan DPR karena merupakanbagian dari varian fungsi pengawasan DPR di samping tentunya bagian dari fungsichecks and balances atas kewenangan presiden. Hal yang menjadi perdebatan adalahketika kewenangan dan kekuasaan DPR dalam seleksi pengisian pejabat publikterjadi penyimpangan akibat tidak transparan dan kredibel dalam melakukan prosespengisian seleksi pejabat publik.Penelitian ini akan memfokuskan pada analisis terhadap kewenangan DPRdalam seleksi pengisian pejabat publik yang diberikan oleh UUD 1945. Di sampingitu juga menganalisa tentang putusan perkara Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 27/PUUXII/2013 tentang pengujian terhadap pemilihan Hakim Agung MA (MahkamahAgung) dan putusan nomor 16/PUU-XII/2014 tentang pengujian terhadap pemilihananggota Komisi Yudisial (KY) dan anggota Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi (KPK).Dimana dalam putusan pemilihan Hakim Agung MA dan anggota KY itumengembalikan kewenangan DPR sebatas hanya menyetujui atau tidak menyetujuipara calon Hakim Agung MA dan anggota KY. Penelitian ini juga melakukanperbandingan pengisian pejabat publik dengan Negara Amerika Serikat, KoreaSelatan dan Filipina. Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan yuridis normatif,dengan analisis data deskriptif kualitatif dan komparatif. ABSTRACT The strong power and authority of the House of Representatives (DPR) due tothe amendment of the Constitution of Indonesia year 1945 (UUD 1945) can be seenin the design of the House of Representative?s involvement scheme in the election ofseveral strategic public position. In the amendment of UUD 1945 there are three (3)forms the appointment of public officials involving the DPR, through theconsideration, approval, and election. At first, the urgency of the appointment ofpublic officials requires the intervention of House of Representative as part of avariant of the House supervision functions in addition to the checks and balancesfunction on the authority of the president. The debate arises when there is deviation inthe authority and power of the House of Representatives in the election of publicofficials due to non-transparent and credible process of filling the election of publicofficials.This study will focus on the analysis of the authority of the House ofRepresentatives in the selection of public officials granted by the Constitution ofIndonesia year 1945. In addition, this study also analyzes the decision of theConstitutional Court case No. 27 / PUU-XII / 2013 concerning the testing of theelection of the Chief Justice of Supreme Court (Supreme Court) and decision number16 / PUU-XII / 2014 concerning the testing of the election of members of the JudicialCommission (KY) and members of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK).Where in the election decision of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court andmembers of the Judicial Commission, the authority of the House of Representative isrestored limitedly only to approve or disapprove the candidates of the Chief Justicesof the Supreme Court and members of KY. This study also compares the appointmentof public officials in the United States, South Korea and the Philippines. This studyuses the normative juridical approach, with qualitative and comparative descriptivedata analysis.;The strong power and authority of the House of Representatives (DPR) due tothe amendment of the Constitution of Indonesia year 1945 (UUD 1945) can be seenin the design of the House of Representative?s involvement scheme in the election ofseveral strategic public position. In the amendment of UUD 1945 there are three (3)forms the appointment of public officials involving the DPR, through theconsideration, approval, and election. At first, the urgency of the appointment ofpublic officials requires the intervention of House of Representative as part of avariant of the House supervision functions in addition to the checks and balancesfunction on the authority of the president. The debate arises when there is deviation inthe authority and power of the House of Representatives in the election of publicofficials due to non-transparent and credible process of filling the election of publicofficials.This study will focus on the analysis of the authority of the House ofRepresentatives in the selection of public officials granted by the Constitution ofIndonesia year 1945. In addition, this study also analyzes the decision of theConstitutional Court case No. 27 / PUU-XII / 2013 concerning the testing of theelection of the Chief Justice of Supreme Court (Supreme Court) and decision number16 / PUU-XII / 2014 concerning the testing of the election of members of the JudicialCommission (KY) and members of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK).Where in the election decision of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court andmembers of the Judicial Commission, the authority of the House of Representative isrestored limitedly only to approve or disapprove the candidates of the Chief Justicesof the Supreme Court and members of KY. This study also compares the appointmentof public officials in the United States, South Korea and the Philippines. This studyuses the normative juridical approach, with qualitative and comparative descriptivedata analysis.;The strong power and authority of the House of Representatives (DPR) due tothe amendment of the Constitution of Indonesia year 1945 (UUD 1945) can be seenin the design of the House of Representative?s involvement scheme in the election ofseveral strategic public position. In the amendment of UUD 1945 there are three (3)forms the appointment of public officials involving the DPR, through theconsideration, approval, and election. At first, the urgency of the appointment ofpublic officials requires the intervention of House of Representative as part of avariant of the House supervision functions in addition to the checks and balancesfunction on the authority of the president. The debate arises when there is deviation inthe authority and power of the House of Representatives in the election of publicofficials due to non-transparent and credible process of filling the election of publicofficials.This study will focus on the analysis of the authority of the House ofRepresentatives in the selection of public officials granted by the Constitution ofIndonesia year 1945. In addition, this study also analyzes the decision of theConstitutional Court case No. 27 / PUU-XII / 2013 concerning the testing of theelection of the Chief Justice of Supreme Court (Supreme Court) and decision number16 / PUU-XII / 2014 concerning the testing of the election of members of the JudicialCommission (KY) and members of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK).Where in the election decision of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court andmembers of the Judicial Commission, the authority of the House of Representative isrestored limitedly only to approve or disapprove the candidates of the Chief Justicesof the Supreme Court and members of KY. This study also compares the appointmentof public officials in the United States, South Korea and the Philippines. This studyuses the normative juridical approach, with qualitative and comparative descriptivedata analysis.;The strong power and authority of the House of Representatives (DPR) due tothe amendment of the Constitution of Indonesia year 1945 (UUD 1945) can be seenin the design of the House of Representative?s involvement scheme in the election ofseveral strategic public position. In the amendment of UUD 1945 there are three (3)forms the appointment of public officials involving the DPR, through theconsideration, approval, and election. At first, the urgency of the appointment ofpublic officials requires the intervention of House of Representative as part of avariant of the House supervision functions in addition to the checks and balancesfunction on the authority of the president. The debate arises when there is deviation inthe authority and power of the House of Representatives in the election of publicofficials due to non-transparent and credible process of filling the election of publicofficials.This study will focus on the analysis of the authority of the House ofRepresentatives in the selection of public officials granted by the Constitution ofIndonesia year 1945. In addition, this study also analyzes the decision of theConstitutional Court case No. 27 / PUU-XII / 2013 concerning the testing of theelection of the Chief Justice of Supreme Court (Supreme Court) and decision number16 / PUU-XII / 2014 concerning the testing of the election of members of the JudicialCommission (KY) and members of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK).Where in the election decision of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court andmembers of the Judicial Commission, the authority of the House of Representative isrestored limitedly only to approve or disapprove the candidates of the Chief Justicesof the Supreme Court and members of KY. This study also compares the appointmentof public officials in the United States, South Korea and the Philippines. This studyuses the normative juridical approach, with qualitative and comparative descriptivedata analysis., The strong power and authority of the House of Representatives (DPR) due tothe amendment of the Constitution of Indonesia year 1945 (UUD 1945) can be seenin the design of the House of Representative’s involvement scheme in the election ofseveral strategic public position. In the amendment of UUD 1945 there are three (3)forms the appointment of public officials involving the DPR, through theconsideration, approval, and election. At first, the urgency of the appointment ofpublic officials requires the intervention of House of Representative as part of avariant of the House supervision functions in addition to the checks and balancesfunction on the authority of the president. The debate arises when there is deviation inthe authority and power of the House of Representatives in the election of publicofficials due to non-transparent and credible process of filling the election of publicofficials.This study will focus on the analysis of the authority of the House ofRepresentatives in the selection of public officials granted by the Constitution ofIndonesia year 1945. In addition, this study also analyzes the decision of theConstitutional Court case No. 27 / PUU-XII / 2013 concerning the testing of theelection of the Chief Justice of Supreme Court (Supreme Court) and decision number16 / PUU-XII / 2014 concerning the testing of the election of members of the JudicialCommission (KY) and members of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK).Where in the election decision of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court andmembers of the Judicial Commission, the authority of the House of Representative isrestored limitedly only to approve or disapprove the candidates of the Chief Justicesof the Supreme Court and members of KY. This study also compares the appointmentof public officials in the United States, South Korea and the Philippines. This studyuses the normative juridical approach, with qualitative and comparative descriptivedata analysis.] |