The Constitutionality of norms are inseparable with the model of judicial review of laws against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. It can be see from the reviews of abstract and concrete norms by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. The review of conrete norms in the decision of judicial review 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 norms, 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. 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.
Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam pengujian undang-undang terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945 (UUD NRI 1945) dengan amar tidak dapat diterima atau niet ontvankelijke verklaard (NO) pada umumnya tidak memiliki pertimbangan hukum. Akan tetapi dalam perkembangannya MK memberikan pertimbangan hukum baik mengenai pokok perkara dan kedudukan hukum Pemohon. Penelitian ini hendak menjawab dua permasalahan yaitu; apa urgensi adanya pertimbangan hukum yang mengandung judicial order dalam putusan dengan amar tidak dapat diterima? Kemudian bagaimana karakteristik judicial order dalam putusan dengan amar tidak dapat diterima? Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum normatif dengan metode pengumpulan data melalui studi pustaka. Penelitian ini mengelompokkan putusan yang memiliki amar NO dari tahun 2003 sampai dengan 2018 yang berjumlah 375 putusan. Dari jumlah tersebut, putusan NO yang memiliki pertimbangan hukum sebanyak 71 putusan. Penelitian ini menemukan 3 putusan yang didalam pertimbangan hukumnya terdapat judicial order yakni Putusan 105/PUU-XIV/2016, Putusan 57/PUU-XV/2017, dan Putusan 98/PUU-XVI/2018. Simpulan dari penelitian ini adalah putusan dengan amar Tidak Dapat Diterima yang memuat judicial order selalu berkaitan dengan implementasi putusan yang tidak berjalan sebagaimana mestinya. MK menegaskan kembali sifat final dan binding Putusan MK serta sifat putusan MK yang declatoir konstitutif melalui putusan a quo. Karakteristik judicial order dalam ketiga a quo adalah ketika MK memberikan peringatan konstitusional secara bertahap (gradual). Pada Putusan 105/PUU-XIV/2016 MK menegaskan bahwa pengabaian putusan MK merupakan perbuatan melawan hukum, selanjutnya pada putusan 57/PUU-XV/2017 MK tegaskan sifat putusan yang self executing dan yang paling mendasar adalah pada putusan 98/PUU-XVI/2018 yang menyatakan bahwa lembaga atau masyarakat yang tidak menjalankan putusan MK merupakan pembangkangan terhadap konstitusi. Lahirnya pertimbangan tersebut sebagai ikhtiar menegakkan supremasi konstitusi dan marwah Mahkamah Konstitusi.Decisions of the Constitutional Court in judicial review of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (1945 Constitution) with an unacceptable verdict or niet ontvankelijke verklaard (NO) generally do not have legal considerations. However, in its development the Court gave legal considerations both on the subject matter and legal position of the Petitioner. This research wants to answer why is the Constitutional Court gives judgment (judicial order) to the case with the unacceptable verdict? What are the legal consequences of legal considerations in the unacceptable verdict on compliance with the Constitutional Court's decision? This research is a normative legal research with data collection method through literature study. This study grouped the decisions that had NO verdicts from 2003 to 2018 totaling 375 decisions. From all of those, NO verdicts that have legal considerations are 71. This study found 3 decisions that have judicial orders in their legal considerations namely Decision 105/PUU-XIV/2016, Decision 57/PUU-XV/2017, and Decision 98/PUU-XVI/2018. The conclusion of this research is that an unacceptable verdict that contains a judicial order is always related to the implementation of a decision that does not work as it should. The Court reaffirmed the final and binding character of the Constitutional Court's decision as well as the character of the Constitutional Court's decision which declared constitutive through a quo decision. The characteristic of judicial order in the three a quo is when the Constitutional Court gives a gradual constitutional warning. In Decision 105/PUU-XIV/2016 the Constitutional Court confirmed that the disregard for the Constitutional Court's decision was an act against the law, then in the decision 57/PUU-XV/2017 the Constitutional Court affirmed the character of the decision that was self-executing and the most basic was the decision 98/PUU-XVI/2018 which states that an institution or community that does not carry out the Constitutional Court's decision is a defiance of the constitution. The birth of these considerations is as an effort to uphold the supremacy of the constitution and the spirit of the Constitutional Court.
Research concerning model and implementation of Constitutional Court Verdicts in Judicial Review of Law against the 1945 Constitution constitutes juridical normative research using secondary data which is primary legal material namely Constitutional Court verdicts issued from 2003 until 2012. This research aimed at identifying decisions of which the dictum say it granted the petition submitted at the Court so that a comprehensive and integrative description of the model and implementation of Constitutional Court verdict can be found out. Article 56 Paragraph (3) and Article 57 Paragraph (1) of Law No. 24 Of 2003 as amended with Law No. 8 of 2011 on the Amendment of Law on Constitutional Court stipulate that in case a petition is granted, the Court will, at the same time, declares that a law is contradictory to the 1945 Constitution either wholly or partially and legally null and void since declard in an open court. This research found out that there are other models of verdict with their own characteristics. Condititonally constitutional and conditionally unconstitutional verdict is basically a model of decisions which do not legally nullify and declare a norm null but these two models contain interpretation of a content of a paragraph, an article and/or part of a law or the whole part of a law which is basically declared contradictory or not contradictory to the Constitution and still have the force of law or do not have the force of law. A limited constitutional model of verdict which postpone an enforcement of a decision which basically aims at providing some time for transition of the provision which has been declared contradictory to the constitution to remain in force until a certain time in the future. Another model of verdict is a decision which formulate a new norm in order to cope with the unconstitutionality of implementation of a norm. This new norm is temporary in nature and will be included in the new law or revision of related law. The implementation of Constitutional Court decision can be inferred from the model of the decisions. A self-executing force can generally be applied to a legally null and void model of verdict and a model of verdict which formulates new norms. Conditionally constitutional, conditionally unconstitutional and limited constitutional model of verdict is non self-executing. This models must go through legislation process either with revision of laws or making of new laws and regulation process for the ordinances made under any acts.
Sepuluh tahun yang lalu putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 3/PUU-VIII/2010 telah menegaskan bahwa bahwa pemberian hak pengusahaan perairan pesisir (HP3) oleh pemerintah kepada pihak swasta bertentangan dengan konstitusi, terutama dengan Pasal 33 ayat (4) UUD 1945. Pembentuk undang-undang kemudian merespon putusan tersebut dengan merevisi UU Nomor 27 Tahun 2007 menjadi Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2014 tentang Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 27 Tahun 2007 tentang Pengelolaan Wilayah Pesisir dan Pulau-Pulau Kecil. Revisi tersebut telah mengubah Rezim HP3 dari UU 27/2007 menjadi rezim perizinan dalam UU 1/2014. Sayangnya, perubahan tersebut justru menimbulkan berbagai persoalan mulai dari konflik antara undang-undang serta peraturan dibawah undang-undang yang pada akhirnya sangat berpotensi merugikan hak-hak konstitusional masyarakat pesisir pantai. Penelitian ini memfokuskan pada aspek yuridis maupun sosiologis terkait perlindungan hak-hak konstitusional masyarakat pesisir pantai setelah Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 3/PUU-VIII/2010. Penelitian ini secara mendalam membahas mengenai tindaklanjut putusan MK a quo oleh pembentuk undang-undang, pemerintah pusat hingga pemerintah daerah dan stakeholder serta pemenuhan hak-hak konstitusional masyarakat pesisir pantai. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum normatif dengan cara meneliti Putusan MK Nomor 3/PUU-VIII/2010. Pembahasan secara deskriptif digunakan untuk memahami politik hukum pengelolaan wilayah pesisir sebagai upaya memenuhi hak-hak konstitusional masyarakat pesisir pantai. Disamping itu, Pengelolaan wilayah pesisir secara terpadu yang merupakan proses yang dinamis, multidisiplin, dan berulang untuk mempromosikan pengelolaan kawasan pesisir yang berkelanjutan. Termasuk seluruh siklus pengumpulan informasi, perencanaan, pengambilan keputusan, manajemen dan pemantauan implementasi. Ten years ago, the Constitutional Court Decision Number 3/PUU-VIII/2010 confirmed that the granting of concession rights for coastal waters (after this: HP3) by the government to private parties was contrary against the constitution, especially Article 33 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution. Legislators then respond to the decision to revise Law No. 27 of 2007 as Law No. 1 of 2014 on the Amendment of Law No. 27 of 2007 on the Management of Coastal Areas and Small Islands. The revision has changed the HP3 regime from Law 27/2007 to the licensing regime in Law 1/2014. Unfortunately, these changes would lead to various juridical problems ranging from conflict between the laws and regulations under legislation that ultimately is potentially detrimental to the constitutional rights of coastal communities. This research focuses on juridical and sociological aspects related to the coastal communities protection of constitutional rights after the Constitutional Court Decision Number 3/PUU-VIII/2010. This research in-depth discusses the follow-up of the Constitutional Court decision a quo by legislators, central government, local governments, stakeholders, and the fulfilment of the constitutional rights of coastal communities. This research is normative legal research by examining the Constitutional Court decision Number 3/PUU-VIII/2010. The descriptive discussion used to understand coastal zone management law's politics to fulfil the constitutional rights of coastal communities. Besides, integrated coastal zone management (Integrated Coastal Zone Management) is a dynamic process, multidisciplinary, and repeated to promote sustainable coastal areas' sustainable management. It includes the whole cycle of information collection, planning, decision-making, management, and implementation monitoring.
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.