Pilihan Desain Penyelesaian Sengketa Kewenangan Lembaga Negara

Siboy, Ahmad

doi:10.18860/j-fsh.v14i1.12736

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Disputes the authority of state institutions or abbreviated as SKLN are disputes that arise between two or more state institutions in which one of the state institutions has taken the rights and authorities of other state institutions that have been granted by the 1945 law [7,8]. And must meet 2 (two) "provisions, namely the provision that the subjectum litis is a state institution that has been included in the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and the objectum litis is the authority granted by the 1945 Constitution [9]."…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The dispute resolution of the authority of state institutions in Indonesia

Capella,

Putra,

Widiarty

et al. 2023

IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A dispute over authority between state institutions is a difference of opinion between two or more state institutions which is also accompanied by a dispute over the rights granted by law between state institutions regarding the authority they have. The purpose of this research is to find out which state institutions have the right to resolve disputes over the authority of state institutions in Indonesia, to find out what kind of decisions have been issued. This research method is normative law with statutory, case, and historical approaches. The data sources used are primary, secondary and tertiary. Data collection techniques by way of literature study, analysis of qualitative juridical data. The results of the research that are authorized to resolve disputes over the authority of state institutions are the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia, namely adjudicating at the first and final levels, the final decision is to decide on disputes over the authority of state institutions whose authority is granted by the Constitution. From 2003-2022, there were 28 cases of SKLN that were granted by the Indonesian Constitutional Court, only one, namely case no.3/SKLN-X/2012. between the KPU RI and the Papua DPRD and the Governor of Papua.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The dispute resolution of the authority of state institutions in Indonesia

Capella,

Putra,

Widiarty

et al. 2023

IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This means that the President/Vice President cannot be impeached due to policy decisions (doelmatigheid beslissing) made or carried out by the President/Vice President in the administration of state government. 1 Therefore, as the highest state officials, both of them can set policies (doelmatigheid beslissing) in the meaning of beleidsgebied. Such government policies do not fall within the realm of judicial authority, meaning they cannot be brought before a judge.…”

Section: Legal Problematicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Article 11. For the purposes of implementing the authority as intended in Article 10, the Constitutional Court has the authority to summon state officials, government officials or members of the public to provide information.Furthermore, Articles 80 to 85 regulate the following matters: Article 80:(1). The applicant is the DPR (2).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Authority Of The Constitutional Court In Impeachment Of The President And/Or The Vice President According To The Basic Law Of The Republic Of Indonesia Of 1945

Yulianto,

Silvana Amalia

2024

IJERSC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the important results of the third amendment to the Republic of Indonesia Constitution of 1945 was the impeachment of the President and/or Vice President. Prior to the third amendment to the Republic of Indonesia Constitution of 1945, there was not a single article that regulated the impeachment of the President and/or Vice President. Even though the third amendment has passed 23 years, we have never had the experience of judicial impeachment in constitutional life in Indonesia. The three presidential impeachments that have occurred in Indonesia were not judicial impeachments, but political impeachments. President Sukarno, President Suharto and President Abdurrahman Wahid were impeached but did not use legal mechanisms through the Constitutional Court. This writing will raise two legal issues: first, whether the terms contained in the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, dismissal and dismissal, are appropriate according to Indonesian Law. Second, what is the mechanism for dismissing the President according to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia after the amendment. The method used in this research is normative juridical research. The approaches used in this research are the statutory approach, conceptual approach, historical approach, case approach and comparative legal approach. From the discussion in this article, it can be concluded that the words "dismissal" and "dismissed" are not appropriate. This is based on the idea that "dismissal" and "dismissed" are not legal language. Thus, according to Indonesian law, it needs to be changed with the word "Pemakzulan" for the word "dismissal" and the word "impeached" for the word "dismissed". The impeachment procedure begins with the DPR's opinion that the President and/or Vice President has committed treason against the state, corruption, bribery, other serious criminal acts or disgraceful acts and/or is proven to be ineligible as president and/or Vice President. The DPR's opinion is registered with the Constitutional Court, with the requirement that 2/3 of the DPR members must be present and 2/3 of the DPR members present support the DPR's opinion. If the Constitutional Court decides that the President and/or Vice President have been proven to have violated the law, the DPR holds a plenary session to forward the proposal to dismiss the President and/or Vice President to the MPR. No later than 30 days after the MPR receives the proposal, the MPR is obliged to hold a session to decide on the DPR's proposal. The MPR's decision on the DPR's proposal must be taken at an MPR plenary meeting attended by ¾ of the members and approved by 2/3 of the total MPR members present.

show abstract

“…Non-juridical changes to the constitution can occur due to certain reasons or special circumstances, resulting in changes to the constitution in total or in part according to needs. 51 Political changes to the constitution as a reality are ongoing and can be accepted by all levels of society, so such changes in the context of Constitutional Law are valid so that they have juridical force. 52 De facto constitutional changes are accepted by all its people, then by convention its status changes to de jure.…”

Section: Strengthening Parliament Through Judicial Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strengthening the Indonesian Bicameral Parliament: Siyasah Dusturiyah Perspective

Kosasih,

Fauzan

et al. 2024

Al-Istinbath: Jurnal Hukum Islam

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research aims at finding a strategy to strengthen Indonesia's bicameral parliament. It is a parliamentary system consisting of an Upper House and a Lower House. The Upper House, Regional Representative Council (DPD), represents certain groups or regions, and the Lower House, House of Representatives (DPR), represents national interests. Ideally the position of the DPR and DPD is in an equal position, however the DPD arrangements in the constitution have a power but do not reflect the bicameral principle. If left unchecked, it can trigger regional dissatisfaction which threatens the disintegration of the nation. This research employed normative juridical research methods with a conceptual and statutory approach. The result showed that the DPD has made efforts to strengthen it through al-sutha al tasyri'iyah (formal amendments) but failed. Moreover, the DPD has also carried out legal reviews by the Constitutional Court (judicial review) but the results have not been significant. The most realistic way to strengthen the DPD and has never been used before is through a constitutional political strategy (siyasah dusturiyah) to create constitutional conventions by vetoing draft laws whose decisions are made without involving the DPD. Therefore, the Indonesian parliamentary system can run in the double check system and check and balance paradigm in maintaining democracy and regional autonomy. Thus, if the DPD has a strong bargaining position in parliament then the goal of forming a strong bicameral parliament can be established.

show abstract

Pilihan Desain Penyelesaian Sengketa Kewenangan Lembaga Negara

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

The dispute resolution of the authority of state institutions in Indonesia

The dispute resolution of the authority of state institutions in Indonesia

Authority Of The Constitutional Court In Impeachment Of The President And/Or The Vice President According To The Basic Law Of The Republic Of Indonesia Of 1945

Strengthening the Indonesian Bicameral Parliament: Siyasah Dusturiyah Perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About