Judicialization of politics are the phenomenon which usually happen in a democratic constitutional state, which cause power movement to resolve problems which related to public policy making and political nature, from the political institution to judicial institution. In Indonesia this phenomenon arise in the authority of the Constitutional Court, especially in the authority of the Constitutional Court when they adjudicate electoral result dispute, whichs so far, most widely submitted cases to the Constitutional Court. But, as a independent and impartial judicial institution the Constitutional Court must restrict to adjudicate the political cases such as electoral result dispute so that this institution would not be politicking object of another branch of government, however judicialization of politics phenomenon is something that Constitutional Court would not avoid, so that this article will examine how important the Constitutional Court to priority judicial restraint principle in order to adjudicate electoral result dispute, so that Constitutional Court would not be politicking object of another branch of government.
This paper examines whether constitutional retrogression, the process through which democratically elected rulers use formal legal measures gradually to undermine democracy, has occurred in Indonesia, especially during the reign of President Joko Widodo. To this end, the paper analyzes the impact of the Widodo government's policies on three fundamental requirements of a democratic state: a democratic electoral system, rights to speech and association, and the rule of law. The paper finds that Widodo's government, in its efforts to contain the threat of Islamist populism, has indeed undermined all three of these elements to varying degrees. While Indonesia's democracy may yet be saved by the Constitutional Court, an institution that Widodo's government has until now failed to control, the Court cannot save democracy by itself. Its chances of doing so will depend on public support.
<p>Dinamika politik legislasi di tingkat nasional saat ini cenderung meminggirkan kepentingan daerah dan lebih mendahulukan kepentingan politik. Menurut penulis salah satu alasannya disebabkan karena Dewan Perwakilan Daerah (DPD) sebagai majelis tinggi dan representasi teritorial di tingkat nasional dalam menjalankan fungsinya yang utama yaitu fungsi legislasi tidak memiliki kewenangan yang kuat, terutama bila dibandingkan dengan DPR sebagai majelis rendah dan representasi politik. Oleh karena itu, penelitian ini mencoba menemukan dasar argumentasi perlunya penguatan terhadap kewenangan konstitusional DPD sebagai majelis tinggi dalam menjalankan fungsi legislasi dengan membandingkan fungsi legislasi yang dimiliki DPD dengan Bundesrat di Jerman sebagai majelis tinggi lainnya yang juga berperan sebagai representasi teritorial di tingkat nasional. Penelitian ini bersifat yuridis normatif dengan menitikberatkan adanya kesenjangan antara harapan ( das sollen ) dan kenyataan ( das sein ), melalui studi perbandingan akan ditemukan persamaan-persamaan ( similiarities ) serta perbedaan ( contrast ) di antara keduanya. Dari perbandingan tersebut terlihat bahwa Bundesrat memiliki fungsi legislasi yang jauh lebih kuat dibandingkan DPD, padahal secara teoritis seharusnya DPD memiliki fungsi legislasi yang lebih kuat sebagai majelis tinggi dibandingkan dengan bundesrat.</p><p>The dynamic-political process of legislation in national level at this time, tends to ignore a local interest and give precedence to political interest. In my opinion one of the reason is because Dewan Perwakilan Daerah (DPD) as a territorial representative at national level in order to run the main function that is legislative function has no powerful authority, compare to DPR as a lower house and as political representative. That’s why, this research try to find basic argumentation the need to strengthen the constitutional authority of DPD as upper house to run legislative function by comparing with German upper house (Bundesrat) which has capacity as territorial representative in national scale. This research is conducted in normative-jurist method which focuses on the existence of expectation (das sollen) and reality (das sein), through this comparison it will be found the similarities and differences in those two. From this comparison we find that Bundesrat has a stronger legislative function than DPD well in fact, theoritically legislative function of DPD must be stronger as a upper house compares to Bundesrat. </p>
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.