Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Berdasarkan ketentuan dalam Pasal 24 ayat (2a) perubahan ketiga UUD 1945, kekuasaan kehakiman diselenggarakan oleh sebuah Mahkamah Agung (MA) dan badan peradilan yang berada dibawahnya dalam lingkungan peradilan umum, lingkungan peradilan agama, lingkungan peradilan militer, lingkungan peradilan tata usaha negara, dan oleh sebuah Mahkamah Konstitusi. Dari empat kewenangan Mahkamah Konstitusi, salah satunya adalah melakukan pengujian undang-undang terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar 1945. Kewenangan pengujian undang-undang terhadap konstitusi yang dimiliki Mahkamah Konstitusi merupakan perlindungan terhadap hak-hak konstitusional warga negara. Sebagaimana hukum acara pada umumnya, hukum acara pengujian undang-undang pada Mahkamah Konstitusi memiliki proses-proses yang harus dilalui. Dari sekian proses tersebut, pengujian mengenai kedudukan hukum (legal standing) dari Pemohon, merupakan tahapan yang paling penting untuk dapat beracara di Mahkamah Konstitusi.Dalam praktik, hakim Mahkamah Konstitusi menerapkan dua persyaratan yang harus dipenuhi pemohon agar memiliki legal standing, yaitu harus menyatakan termasuk empat kualifikasi Pemohon sebagaimana ditentukan dalam Pasal 51 ayat (1) UUMK< kemudian menjelaskan bahwa Pemohon memiliki hak konstitusional yang diberikan UUD 1945, hak konstitusional tersebut dirugikan oleh berlakunya undang-undang, kerugian tersebut harus spesifik aktual maupun potensial, adanya hubungan kausalitas antara kerugian dengan berlakunya undang-undang, dan kemungkinan dengan dikabulkannya permohonan tersebut kerugian tidak akan terjadi lagi.Dalam penulisan skripsi ini penulis juga membahas hal yang masih terkait dengan kewenangan Mahkamah Konstitusi untuk menguji undang-undang yaitu dalam mengenai ketiadaan norma sebagai obyek pengujian dalam Mahkamah Konstitusi sebagai bagian dalam hukum acara di Mahkamah Konstitusi. Berdasarkan ketentuan dalam pasal 51 ayat (3) huruf b UUMK, mewajibkan pemohon dalam permohonan pengujian undang-undang terhadap UUD 1945 untuk menguraikan dengan jelas materi muatan dalam ayat, pasal, dan/atau bagian dari undang- undang yang dianggapnya bertentangan dengan UUD 1945. Dalam dalam praktek, Mahkamah Konstitusi mengabulkan permohonan perkara pengujian undang-undang dalam hal ketiadaan norma. Hal tersebut mungkin saja terjadi karena pembentukan UUMK sendiri dilakukan sangat singkat dan cakupan masalah yang dirumuskan dalam kaidah-kaidah yang dikandungnya masih sangat sederhana. Sehingga Mahkamah Konstitusi berusaha mengatur masalah-masalah yang dihadapi dalam praktek dengan membentuk Peraturan Mahkamah Konstitusi.

---

Based on the provisions in Article 24, paragraph (2a) changes the third of the 1945 Constitution, judicial power is held by a Supreme Court (MA) and the judicial body that is located underneath the environment in general, the religious environment, the military environment, the environment administration of justice, and by a Constitutional Court. Four of the authority of the Constitution Court, one of which is to test the laws of the 1945 Constitution. The authority of the laws of the constitution of the Constitutional Court is the protection of constitutional rights of citizens. As the law in general, the law of the law on the Constitutional Court have the processes that must be passed. Of the process, the position of the law (legal standing) from the applicant, is the most important stages to be able to be in session in the Constitutional Court.In practice, the judge Constitutional Court to apply the two requirements that must be fulfilled so that the applicant has legal standing, the claim must include the four applicant qualifications as specified in Article 51, paragraph (1) UUMK then explained that the applicant has a constitutional right given to the 1945 Constitution, constitutional rights are disadvantaged by the introduction of the law, damages must be specific and actual potential, the relationship between loss causalities with the introduction of laws, and possibly with the application to be granted loss will not occur again.In writing this essay author also discusses the things that are related to the Constitutional Court the authority to test the law in the absence of norms as a test object in the Constitutional Court as the law in the Constitutional Court in the event. Based on the provisions in article 51 paragraph (3) letter b UUMK, require the applicant in the application of laws against the 1945 Constitution to construe the clear material in the cargo clause, article, and/or part of the law deems contrary to the 1945 Constitution.In practice, the Constitution Court grant the application of the law in the absence of norms. This may happen because the establishment of their own UUMK is very short and the scope of the problem formulated in the convention to be contain the rule is very simple. So that the Constitutional Court seeks to set up the problems faced in practice with the Constitutional Court Rules form. Keywords: Constitutional Court, Legal Standing, Object Testing."

"ABSTRAKPengujian undang-undang merupakan kewenangan yang paling dominan terjadi di Mahkamah Konstitusi. Akan tetapi hingga empat belas tahun Mahkamah Konstitusi dibentuk belum ada ketentuan yang secara khusus mengatur mengenai batas waktu penyelesaiannya. Tesis ini membahas sekaligus merumuskan urgensi batas waktu penyelesaian pengujian undang-undang di Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah metode penelitian normatif yang disempurnakan dengan perbandingan lima negara. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukan bahwa telah terjadi standar ganda antara batas waktu pengujian undang-undang dengan sengketa yang lain dimana sengketa pembubaran partai politik, perselisihan hasil pemilihan umum dan impeachment memiliki batas waktu penyelesaian sedangkan pengujian undang-undang yang notabenenya adalah kewenangan dominan dari Mahkamah Konstitusi justru tidak memiliki batas waktu penyelesaiannya.Selain itu ketiadaan batas waktu penyelesaian juga terbukti menciptakan suatu kondisi yang dinamakan justice delayed is justice denied, dimana baik Pemohon, Masyarakat dan Mahkamah Agung tidak mengetahui kepastian waktu tentang putusan pengujian undang-undang akan memiliki kekuatan hukum tetap. Kasus korupsi mantan Hakim Konstitusi berinisial ldquo;PA rdquo; juga menjadi studi dalam penelitian ini yang membuktikan bahwa ketiadaan batas waktu menciptakan ruang negosiasi antara para pihak dan oknum pengadilan untuk melakukan tindakan koruptif. Maka dari itu perlu adanya upaya untuk merevisi Undang-Undang Mahkamah Konstitusi dengan menambahkan tiga formulasi batas waktu penyelesaian pengujian undang-undang dalam suatu rumusan norma. Ketiga rumusan tersebut adalah batas waktu pengujian undang-undang yang bersifat kerugian potensial terhadap peristiwa konkret, batas waktu penyelesaian terhadap PERPU, dan batas waktu secara umum. Apabila Mahkamah Konstitusi memutus lebih dari waktu yang telah ditentukan maka terdapat konsekuensi hukum yang harus dilakukan berupa melakukan notifikasi dan penjelasan yang rasional kepada Pemohon dan Masyarakat

---

ABSTRACTJudicial Review represents the most dominant authority at the Constitutional Court. However, it has been fourteen years since the establishment of the Constitutional Court and the regulation to specifically determine a definite deadline for case resolution has yet to be issued. This theses discusses and also formulate the urgency to establish case resolution deadline for judicial review at the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. The research method applied utilizes normative research method improvised with comparative study from three countries. Research results revealed signs of double standards between the deadlines for judicial review with other judicial disputes, whereas political party dissolution dispute, general election results dispute and impeachment presented definite deadline for case resolution while judicial review which supposedly represents the domain jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court fails to submit any deadline for case resolution. In alternative, that the vacuum in such deadline has generated the condition known as rdquo justice delayed is justice denied rdquo , in which the Applicant, Public and the Supreme Court is shrouded concerning the definite deadline for the judicial review, to interpret any legal binding effect out of it. The corruption case of ldquo PA rdquo as former Constitutional Court was also investigated in this research as an evidence that the vacuum in the deadline has in turn created a negotiation room between parties and court officials to conduct corruptive actions. As such, the necessity to revised the Law on Constitutional Court is of paramount importance by adding three formula on deadline for case resolution within a normative framework. Those three formulations constitutes deadline in judicial review for laws with potential laws in nature to concrete events, deadline in judicial review to PERPU, and general deadline. In the event that the Constitutional Court issued a decision for such case beyond the agreed deadline, then such act will trigger mandatory legal consequences comprised of issuing notification and rational reasoning to the Applicant and Public at large. "

"[ABSTRAKPengujian norma konkret dalam putusan pengujian undang-undang terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 pada dasarnya tidak menjadi kewenangan MK. Pengujian terhadap norma secara teoritis haruslah bertitiktolak dari norma abstrak sebagai implikasi kedudukan MK yang menjadi pengadilan norma dan mengujinya terhadap konstitusi. Untuk menilai konstitusionalitas norma undang-undang, maka norma abstraklah yang seharusnya ditafsirkan oleh MK. Sedangkan norma konkret lebih menitikberatkan implementasi atau penerapan dari norma itu sendiri. Penerapan norma tidak dapat dilepaskan dari legalitas norma, sedangkan konstitusionalitas norma adalah menguji kebersesuain norma tesebut dengan konstitusi. Apabila landasan pengujian norma adalah Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 maka norma abstrak yang seharusnya menjadi materi utama untuk diuji. Sebaliknya ketika norma konkret yang akan diuji, maka yang harus dipertimbangkan juga adalah penerapan dari norma tersebut yang sudah sudah masuk dalam kasus konkret yang terjadi. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan kasus (case approach) yaitu 15 (lima belas) putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi sepanjang 2003-2013 dalam pengujian undang-undang terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 secara materiil yang memfokuskan pada ratio decidendi hakim konstitusi dalam menentukan konstitusionalitas norma. Hasil penelitian ini menujukkan bahwa MK dalam menguji undang-undang terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 tidak memisahkan secara dikotomis antara norma abtrak dan norma konkret. Dalam upaya melindungai hak-hak konstitusional warga negara, tidak adanya upaya hukum lanjutan yang akan ditempuh oleh Pemohon, serta untuk memberikan kepastian hukum yang adil, MK mengabulkan pengujian norma konkret. Meskipun MK tetap tegas menyatakan bahwa hal tersebut adalah norma konkret, sehingga permohonan pemohon hanya dikabulkan sebagian pada pengujian norma abstraknya saja. Sedangkan dalam hal putusan MK yang menolak pengujian norma konkret karena norma yang diujikan bukanlah persoalan konstitusionalitas norma melainkan penerapan norma dan permintaan putusan provisi (putusan sela) yang tidak relevan dengan pokok perkara. Pengujian norma konkret dalam putusan menolak adalah bentuk kehatian-hatian MK agar tidak mengadili perkara yang menjadi kewenangan peradilan lain yaitu Mahkamah Agung serta peradilan di bawahnya. Adapun terkait putusan yang menyatakan tidak dapat diterima, MK menyatakan bahwa Pemohon tidak memiliki kedudukan hukum serta MK tidak memiliki kewenangan untuk menguji norma tersebut. Akhirnya, ke depan MK dalam perlu menegaskan perihal kedudukan norma sebelum melakukan pemeriksaan lebih mendalam terhadap permohonan yang diajukan. Di samping itu MK perlu diberikan kewenangan pengaduan konstitusional (constitutional complaint) atau pertanyaan konstittusional (constitutional question) sehingga terciptanya harmonisasi penafsiran berdasarkan konstitusi.

---

ABSTRACTThe review of conrete norms in the decision of judicial review of laws against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia 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 norm, 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. Finally, 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.;The review of conrete norms in the decision of judicial review of laws against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia 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 norm, 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. Finally, 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.;The review of conrete norms in the decision of judicial review of laws against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia 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 norm, 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. Finally, 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.;The review of conrete norms in the decision of judicial review of laws against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia 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 norm, 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. Finally, 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., The review of conrete norms in the decision of judicial review of laws against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia 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 norm, 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. Finally, 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.]"

"Kedudukan hukum pemohon judicial review di Indonesia hanya perorangan warga negara Indonesia menyebabkan warga negara asing tidak dapat mengajukan judicial review, meskipun hak asasi manusia warga negara asing dirugikan atau dilangar dengan berlakunya perundang-undangan pelaksana. Oleh karena itu dalam penulisan ini dibahas, Kedudukan hukum pemohon dalam sistem pengujian peraturan perundang-undangan di Indonesia, Perbandingan kedudukan hukum pemohon warga negara asing dalam mengajukan judicial review di beberapa negara, kedudukan hukum pemohon warga negara asing dalam mengajukan judicial review di Indonesia. Untuk menjawab itu, digunakan metode penelitian hukum dengan pendekatan undang-undang, kasus, konsep dan perbandingan. Dari penelitian di peroleh hasil bahwa kedudukan hukum dalam mengajukan permohonan judicial review di Indonesia dapat dilihat melalui kualifikasi pemohon dan kualifikasi kerugian, kualifikasi pemohon adalah perorangan warga negara Indonesia, kesatuan masyarakat hukum adat, badan hukum publik dan privat serta lembaga negara dan kualifikasi kerugian terhadap hak-hak yang telah diatur dan dijamin dalam UUD 1945. Kedudukan hukum pemohon hanya perorangan warga negara Indonesia menyebabkan warga negara asing yang mengalami kerugian hak asasi manusia tidak dapat diterima oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi. Namun ada beberapa hakim konstitusi mengajukan pendapat berbeda yang pada intinya menyatakan bahwa pemohon warga negara asing seharusnya diberikan kedudukan hukum jika substandi permohonan judicial review berkaitan dengan hak asasi manusia yang tidak dapat dikurangi dalam keadaan apapun. Perbandingan kedudukan hukum pemohon judicial review di beberapa negara seperti Jerman, Mongolia, Ceko, Goergia, Hungaria, Austria, Korea Selatan, Africa Selatan, Rusia dan Amerika Serikat, yang tidak membatasi warga negara asing sebagai pemohon judicial review, bahkan beberapa pemohon warga negara asing yang diterima kedudukan hukum dan permohonan dalam oleh negara pembanding tersebut. Kedudukan hukum pemohon warga negara asing yang tidak diterima di Indonesia menyebabkan terjadinya pelangaran terhadap prinsip-prinsip negara hukum dan hak asasi manusia, yaitu hak diakui sebagai pribadi dihadapan hukum dan pengadilan dan hak persamaan dihadapan hukum dan pengadilan, dimana hak ini telah dijamin dalam UUD 1945. Dalil konstitusional mengenai pembatasan hak asasi ternyata tidak dapan menjamin oleh karena hak yang dilangar merupakan hak asasi manusia yang tidak dapat dibatasi dalam keadaan apapun. Sehingga perlu tangung jawab negara untuk memberikan kedudukan hukum melalui pembentukan peraturan yang baru dengan mencantumkan pemohon adalah setiap orang yang mengalami kerugian konstitusional sedangkan terhadap warga negara asing hanya pada kerugian yang termasuk dalam katagori non derogable rights sedangkan derogable rights tidak.

---

The legal standing of the applicant for judicial review in Indonesia is only an individual Indonesian citizen, causing foreign nationals to be unable to apply for a judicial review, even though the human rights of foreign nationals have been harmed or violated by the enactment of the implementing laws. Therefore, in this paper discussed, the legal position of the applicant in the system of testing the laws and regulations in Indonesia, the comparison of the legal position of the applicant for foreign nationals in filing a judicial review in several countries, the legal position of the applicant for a foreign citizen in filing a judicial review in Indonesia. To answer that, legal research methods are used with the approach of laws, cases, concepts and comparisons. From the research, it is found that the legal position in applying for a judicial review in Indonesia can be seen through the qualifications of the applicant and the qualifications for losses, the qualifications of the applicants are individual Indonesian citizens, indigenous peoples, public and private legal entities and state institutions and qualifications of loss to rights. Right that has been regulated and guaranteed in the 1945 Constitution. The legal standing of the applicant is only an individual Indonesian citizen, which means that foreign nationals who experience human rights losses cannot be accepted by the Constitutional Court. However, there were several constitutional judges who put forward a different opinion which basically stated that the foreign citizen applicant should be given a legal standing if the substance of the application for judicial review relates to human rights which cannot be reduced under any circumstances. Comparison of the legal standing of the applicants for judicial review in several countries, such as Germany, Mongolia, Czech, Goergia, Hungary, Austria, South Korea, South Africa, Russia and the United States, which do not limit foreign nationals as applicants for judicial review, even some applicants are foreign nationals the legal standing and application received by the comparable country. The legal standing of the applicant for foreign citizens who is not accepted in Indonesia causes violations of the principles of the rule of law and human rights, namely the right to be recognized as a person before the law and court and the right to equality before the law and court, where this right has been guaranteed in the 1945 Constitution. Constitutional arguments regarding the limitation of human rights are not guaranteed because the rights that are violated are human rights that cannot be limited under any circumstances. So it needs the responsibility of the state to provide a legal position through the formation of a new regulation by including the applicant is everyone who experiences a constitutional loss while foreigners only suffer losses which are included in the category of non derogable rights while derogable rights are not."

"Paska amandemen konstitusi Indonesia, DPR periode 1999-2004 memiliki otoritas yang besar dalam proses penyusunan UU. Namun, UU yang dihasilkan DPR masih saja memunculkan kontroversi, ketidakpuasan, menuai protes dan berbagai bentuk resistensi lainnya dari masyarakat, seperti yang diperlihatkan dalam kasus UU Yayasan dan UU Penyiaran. UU Yayasan memunculkan ketidakpuasan di kalangan komunitas yang selama ini aktif dalam pengelolaan berbagai macam kegiatan dengan menggunakan instrumen organisasi berbentuk yayasan, seperti LSM, yayasan-yayasan pendidikan, dan sebagainya. Selain itu UU yang baru saja disahkan tersebut saat ini sedang dalam proses revisi. UU Penyiaran juga menuai ketidakpuasan, terutama dari para pengelola televisi swasta. Saat ini mereka sedang melakukan judicial review atas UU tersebut.Ketika penyusunan sebuah UU, partisipasi publik merupakan aspek penting dalam proses penyusunan UU. Pembahasan tentang partisipasi publik berkaitan erat dengan relasi masyarakat dengan negara (sate-society relation) dalam pembentukan kebijakan yang akan dikeluarkan negara untuk mengatur warganya. Ada dua cara pandang untuk menjelaskan tentang partisipasi publik. Pertama, karena masyarakat sudah memberikan mandatnya kepada negara, mnka pembentukan kebijakan publik sepenuhnya diserahkan kepada negara. Peran atau partisipasi masyarakat hanya dibutuhkan pada saat memilih orang-orang yang akan menduduki berbagai jabatan di lembaga negara, misalnya melalui pemilihan umum. Kedua, sekalipun telah memberikan mandatnya kepada negara, masyarakat tetap memiliki hak untuk terlibat dalam pembentukan kebijakan yang akan dikeluarkan negara. Peran masyarakat, secara urnum, dapat dilakukan dengan dua cara. Pertama, negara menjamin tersedianya ruang-ruang partisipasi yang luas bagi masyarakat dalam proses penyusunan kebijakan. Kedua, negara bekerjasama dengan masyarakat dalam seluruh proses penyusunan kebijakan.Dalam konteks penyusunan UU di DPR, ada dua hal yang akan menentukan hasil akhir dari RUU yang sedang dibahas, yaitu artikulasi berbagai kepentingan oleh DPR dan partisipasi masyarakat dalam penyusunan UU tersebut. DPR diberikan ruang-ruang untuk mengartikulasikan berbagai kepentingani itu. Bentuknya berupa hak yang diberikan kepada anggota DPR dalam berbagai rapat pembahasan RUU, seperti hak ikut serta, hak berbicara, dan hak dalam pengambilan keputusan. Di luar itu, DPR juga dapat membentuk berbagai ruang artikulasi informal, seperti lobi, yang keberadaannya tergantung pada kreatifitas mereka untuk membentuknya.Masyarakat juga memiliki kesempatan untuk terlibat dalam penyusunan UU melalui berbagai ruang partisipasi yang tersedia. Dalam proses formal penyusunan UU, ruang partisipasi yang tersedia adalah Rapat Dengar Pendapat Umum dan sosialisasi RUU. Sementara itu, masyarakat memiliki kesempatan untuk membentuk berbagai ruang partisipasi informal, tergantung pada kemampuan mereka untuk melakukannya.Mengacu pada pembahasan RUU Yayasan dan RUU Penyiaran, DPR belum optimal menggunakan ruang-ruang artikulasi yang tersedia. Rendahnya tingkat kehadiran dan keaktifan dalam Rapat Paripurna, Rapat Pansus, dan Raker, adalah indikator tidak digunakannya secara optimal ruang-ruang artikulasi yang tersedia. DPR juga tidak memiliki kreatifitas untuk membentuk ruang-ruang artikulasi informal. Dalam tataran informal ini, hanya lobi yang dijadikan sebagai ruang artikulasi andalan. Penggunaan ruang-ruang artikulasi yang tidak optimal ini tidak terlepas dari berbagai persoalan internal maupun eksternal yang dihadapi DPR, seperti jumlah anggota Pansus yang terlalu banyak dan bidang kerjanya yang terlalu luas, ketiadaan sanksi bagi anggota DPR yang tidak hadir dalam berbagai rapat pembahasan RUU, dukungan staf DPR yang tidak memadai, dominasi fraksi dalam setiap rapat pembahasan RUU, dan sebagainya.Kecuali dalam kasus RUU Penyiaran, masyarakat juga belum optimal dalam menggunakan ruang-ruang partisipasi yang tersedia. Masyarakat tidak memiliki inisiatif untuk memanfaatkan ruang partispasi yang ada. Dan tidak kreatif untuk menciptakan berbagai bentuk ruang partisipasi informal. Pengetahuan yang tidak memadai tentang mekanisme penyusunan UU di DPR dan dinamika yang mengiringinya, penguasaan yang lemah terhadap substansi RUU dan bentuk-bentuk lobi, sedikitnya dana yang tersedia, selain juga ruang partisipasi di DPR yang sempit, adalah beberapa hal yang sering menghambat masyarakat untuk menggunakan ruang-ruang partisipasi secara optimal.Sinergi dalam penggunaan ruang-ruang di atas antara DPR dan masyarakat juga tidak terjadi, kecuali dalam kasus RUU Penyiaran. Kesediaan untuk bermitra di antara mereka adalah hambatan paling besar dalam membangun sinergi ini.Kondisi di atas tentu saja berdampak pada UU yang dihasilkan DPR. Penggunaan ruang artikulasi yang rendah menyebabkan pembahasan UU menjadi tidak matang, terbukti dengan direvisinya UU Yayasan, sekalipun UU tersebut tetap sah secara formal prosedural. Sedangkan tidak optimalnya penggunaan ruang partisipasi berakibat pada lemahnya legitimasi UU yang dihasilkan DPR yang seringkali berujung pada ketidakpuasan atau penolakan masyarakat terhadap UU tersebut."

"ABSTRAKUji Konstitusionalitas Peraturan Perundang-undangan (Constitutional Review)dapat diuji melalui mekanisme uji materil di Mahkamah Konstitusi (judicialreview), di Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat (legislative review), dan oleh Eksekutif(excecutive review). Untuk uji materil undang-undang dapat melalui 2 (dua)mekanisme yakni melalui judicial review di Mahkamah Konstitusi dan legislativereview di DPR meskipun hasilnya berbeda. Apabila Mahkamah Konstitusimembatalkan norma sedangkan DPR menggantikan norma. Akhir-akhir ini adawarga negara apabila ingin mengajukan uji materiil ke Mahkamah Konstitusidisarankan untuk ke DPR karena bukan wewenang MahkamahKonstitusi.Legislative review yang dilakukan dalam kapasitas sebagai lembagayang membentuk dan membahas serta menyetujui undang-undang. Bagi lembagayang menjalankan fungsi legislasi dalam hal ini Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat (DPR)dan presiden serta DPD (untuk Undang-undang tertentu) untuk menjadi masukanyang bermanfaat untuk meningkatkan kinerja dan memperkuat fungsi legislasi.Untuk itu kedudukan legislative review oleh Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat (DPR)merupakan mekanisme uji konstitusionalitas undang-undang untuk menerima ujikonstitusionalitas undang-undang terhadap terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar yangdiajukan oleh masyarakat. Checks and balances dalam pembentukan undangundangsangat penting sebagai bagian dari pelaksanaan tugas wakil rakyat danperan DPR dalam pembentukan undang-undang merupakan sebagai bentukpertanggungjawaban kepada konstituen atau rakyat yang memilih.

---

ABSTRACTReview the Constitutionality of Legislation (Constitutional Review) can be testedthrough a mechanism of judicial review in the Constitutional Court (judicialreview), in the House of Representatives (legislative), and by the Executive(excecutive review). For judicial legislation can in 2 (two) through the mechanismof judicial review in the Constitutional Court and legislative review in the Houseof Representatives although the results are different. If the Constitutional Courtannulled the norm while the House replace the norm. Lately there if citizens wantto file a judicial review to the Constitutional Court suggested to the Housebecause it was not authorized to Konstitusi.Legislative Court review done in thecapacity of institutions that make and review and approve legislation. For thoseinstitutions that perform the function of legislation in this House ofRepresentatives (DPR) and the president and DPD (for specific legislation) to be auseful input to improve performance and strengthen the legislative function. Forthe position of legislative review by the House of Representatives (DPR) is atesting mechanism constitutionality of laws to accept constitutionality of lawsagainst the Constitution proposed by the community. Checks and balances in thelegislation are very important as part of the implementation of the tasks and roleof the people's representatives in Parliament is law making as a form ofaccountability to constituents or the people who choose."