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.
The research is concerning the implementation of verdict stating conditionally constitutional, conditionally unconstitutional and and the verdicts that contain new norm decided by Constitutional Court in the case of judicial review of laws againts the 1945 Constitutions of The Republic of Indonesia. This is a juridical-normative research using secondary data in the form of primary law materials, namely the court decisions which are issued throughout the year 2003 up to the year 2012 that have been collected in previous research. This research aims to know the choice of form of law taken by the addressee of the Constitutional Court verdict in following up the three variant of verdicts mentioned above. The research found that the choice of the form of law in implementing the three variants of Constitutional Court verdict is very diverse. Referring to the form and substance of the implementing rules and regulations of the three variants of verdict, there are still some incoherence with the Constitutional Court verdict which is characterized by the presence of rejudicial review of norms that had been interpreted by the court. To address this problem, the Constitutional Court must be provided with legal instruments, among other, judicial order that enable the Constitutional Court to order by force the addressee to implement the Constitutional Court verdict. In addition, in order that to ensure the harmonization of legislation either vertically or horizontally as a result of the Constitutional Court verdict, then it is worth putting into consideration to expand the authority of the Constitutional Court to review all rules and legislation.
Decision-making in the Settlement of Local Election Dispute at the Constitutional Court is based on the conviction of the justices after examining evidence submitted by the parties. Meanwhile, the law has limited the authority of the Court which is simply to rule on the result of vote count in the local election. Therefore, through interpretation, the Court has created new norms in its decision concerning local election.In some of its decisions, the Court broadened its authority in the settlement of local election dispute which is to include the process of the election. The dictum of the decision does not merely follow what is stated in the law. There is compatibility in the justices’ conviction based on interpretation done by the justices regarding the authority of the Court in deciding Local Election Dispute and in the choice of dictum of the decision which is different from what has been stated by the law.
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.