Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Di dalam usianya yang ke-2, MK telah mengalami perkembangan yang naik turun. Hal ini dapat dilihat dari materi dan pertimbangan dalam putusan yang dikeluarkan oleh MK. Ada beberapa umpan plus yang menggembirakan tetapi ada pula minus yang mengkhawatirkan banyak pihak bahwa MK tidak lagi sebagai pengawal konstitusi. "

"Melalui Putusan Nomor 91/PUU-XVIII/2020, Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK) menafsirkan partisipasi masyarakat dalam sebuah terminologi “meaningful participation” yang mencakup 3 (tiga) syarat yaitu right to be heard, right to be considered dan right to be right explained. Namun makna tersebut masih bersifat umum dan membutuhkan elaborasi lebih lanjut. Misalnya dalam menentukan sejauh mana indikator “bermakna” dapat dinilai dari partisipasi dan apakah jumlah masyarakat menentukan bermaknanya sebuah partisipasi. Melalui pendekatan doktriner dan analisis terhadap Putusan MK perihal pengujian formil sejak tahun 2003-2022, penelitian ini bertujuan untuk melihat pola Putusan MK dan menganalisis ratio decidendi yang digunakan oleh Majelis Hakim. Dari 49 putusan tentang permohonan pengujian formil, diperoleh 23 putusan yang dipertimbangkan dengan dalil permohonan “partisipasi masyarakat.” Hasil penelitian menunjukkan terdapat parameter yang menentukan meaningful participation sebagai elaborasi dari 3 (tiga) syarat sebelumnya yaitu Pertama keterbukaan akses masyarakat dalam mengetahui setiap tahapan beserta riwayat/risalah. Kedua, pertimbangan jangka waktu pembahasan dan subjek terdampak secara proporsional dengan cakupan undang-undang yang dibahas. Ketiga, tracking atas pendapat masyarakat yang diadopsi maupun tidak dalam perumusan norma. Selain itu, kedepan diharapkan adanya terobosan hukum dengan lebih mengedepankan keadilan substantif dalam pengujian formil terutama menguji pemenuhan partisipasi masyarakat. Hal ini bertujuan agar tercapainya hakikat dari meaningful participation itu sendiri.

---

Through Decision Number 91/PUU-XVIII/2020, the Constitutional Court (MK) interpreted the participation of the public in the terminology of "meaningful participation," which includes three requirements: the right to be heard, the right to be considered, and the right to be right explained. However, this meaning remains general and requires further elaboration. For example, it needs clarification on how the indicator of "meaningful" can be assessed in participation and whether the number of people determines the meaningfulness of participation. Using a doctrinal approach and analyzing MK's decisions on formal testing from 2003 to 2022, this study aims to observe patterns in MK's decisions and analyze the ratio decidendi used by the panel of judges. Out of 49 decisions on formal testing applications, 23 decisions were related to the argument of "public participation." The research findings indicate that there are parameters determining meaningful participation as elaboration of the previous three requirements. Firstly, it involves the openness of public. Secondly, it considers about the numbers. Thirdly, it involves tracking the adoption or non-adoption of public opinions. Moreover, in the future, it is hoped that legal breakthroughs will prioritize substantive justice in formal testing, especially when evaluating the fulfillment of public participation."

"Tesis ini membahas tentang praktik penyelesaian pengujian formil undang-undang di Makamah Konstitusi sehingga mampu menggambarkan pola yang dipakai dalam memeriksa dan memutus konstitusionalitas pembentukan undang-undang. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian kualitatif dengan desain analisis deskriptif.Hasil penelitian menemukan bahwa terdapat perbedaan mengenai penerapan dasar uji dalam pengujian materiil dan pengujian formil undang-undang dan adanya pemisahan penilaian antara konstitusionalitas pembentukan undang-undang dan penilaian batal hukumnya suatu undang-undang.

---

This thesis discusses the practical of formal law review settlement by the Constitutional Court of Indonesia to describe the patterns used in examining and deciding the constitutionality of the law. This study is a qualitative research design with a descriptive analysis.The results found that there are differences of the basis review in material law review and formal law review and the separation between the constitutionality assessment of law form and assessment invalidated a law."

"[ABSTRAKAnak yang dilahirkan dari perkawinan tidak sah akan menciptakan pada status anak luar kawin bagi anak bersangkutan. Konsekuensi normatif dari status anak luar kawin membawa pada tidak adanya hubungan keperdataan antara anak luar kawin dengan ayah biologisnya. Keadaan tersebut tentu menghilangkan hak-hak konstitusional anak. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusional Nomor 46/PUU-VIII/2010, menjadi jawaban bagi anak luar kawin untuk memperoleh kembali hak tersebut. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi memfokuskan pada dua hal, yaitu perlindungan anak dan pertanggungjawaban ayah biologis melalui pembuktian. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi menjadi acuan oleh Pengadilan Negeri dalam menghadapi permasalahan anak luar kawin. Hasil penelitian menyimpulkan bahwa, oleh beberapa Pengadilan Negeri yang dibahas dalam penulisan ini terlihat ketidakkonsistenan hakim dalam memberikan pertimbangan hukum berkaitan dengan status keperdataan anak luar kawin. Sehingga, perlu adanya kejelasan tentang aturan dan prosedur yang mengatur tentang penetapan ayah biologis dari anak luar kawin tersebut dari pihak pihak pengadilan pasca adanya Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi tersebut.ABSTRACTThe children who borns from illegitimate marriage will create on the status of a child born out of wedlock. The normative consequence from that matter is there is no legal relationship between a child and his biological father. This condition surely remove the constitutional rights of child. The existence of Constitutional Court of Decision Number 46/PUU-VIII/2010 become the answer for the child who born out of wedlock to reclaim their rights. The constitutional court decision focus on two things: child protection and the responsibility of the biological father through evidence. This constitutional court decision become a reference by district court in dealing with the problem of a child born out of wedlock. The result of this research concluded, by some district cout decision that analys in this reseach, that there is an incinsistencies judges decision in giving judicial consideration in concerned with the legal status of a child born out of wedlock. So, there should be a clarification on rules and procedures which regulates the biological father of the external marriage child from the court after the constitutional court decision.;The children who borns from illegitimate marriage will create on the status of a child born out of wedlock. The normative consequence from that matter is there is no legal relationship between a child and his biological father. This condition surely remove the constitutional rights of child. The existence of Constitutional Court of Decision Number 46/PUU-VIII/2010 become the answer for the child who born out of wedlock to reclaim their rights. The constitutional court decision focus on two things: child protection and the responsibility of the biological father through evidence. This constitutional court decision become a reference by district court in dealing with the problem of a child born out of wedlock. The result of this research concluded, by some district cout decision that analys in this reseach, that there is an incinsistencies judges decision in giving judicial consideration in concerned with the legal status of a child born out of wedlock. So, there should be a clarification on rules and procedures which regulates the biological father of the external marriage child from the court after the constitutional court decision., The children who borns from illegitimate marriage will create on the status of a child born out of wedlock. The normative consequence from that matter is there is no legal relationship between a child and his biological father. This condition surely remove the constitutional rights of child. The existence of Constitutional Court of Decision Number 46/PUU-VIII/2010 become the answer for the child who born out of wedlock to reclaim their rights. The constitutional court decision focus on two things: child protection and the responsibility of the biological father through evidence. This constitutional court decision become a reference by district court in dealing with the problem of a child born out of wedlock. The result of this research concluded, by some district cout decision that analys in this reseach, that there is an incinsistencies judges decision in giving judicial consideration in concerned with the legal status of a child born out of wedlock. So, there should be a clarification on rules and procedures which regulates the biological father of the external marriage child from the court after the constitutional court decision.]"

"Penelitian ini dilatar belakangi oleh adanya putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 30/PUU-XV/2018 terhadap Kelembagaan Dewan Perwakilan Daerah, serta urgensi keanggotaan DPD RI yang berasal dari unsur partai politik akibat putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 30/PUU-XV/2018. Metode yang digunakan kualitatif dengan pendekatan Yuridis Normatif. Temuan pada penelitian ini adalah: Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam putusannya menegaskan bahwa frasa "pekerjaan lain" dalam Pasal 182 huruf i UU Pemilu bertentangan dengan UUD 1945 dan tidak mempunyai kekuatan hukum mengikat secara bersyarat sepanjang tidak dimaknai mencakup pula pengurus partai politik (parpol). Putusan MK tersebut berdampak pada larangan pencalonan anggota DPD dari unsur pengurus parpol. DPD tidak dapat diisi oleh pengurus parpol, "Pengurus parpol" struktur organisasi parpol yang bersangkutan. MK mengakui bahwa Pasal 182 huruf i UU Pemilu memang tidak secara tegas melarang pengurus parpol mencalonkan diri menjadi calon anggota DPD. Sikap MK berdasarkan putusan-putusan sebelumnya selalu menegaskan bahwa calon anggota DPD tidak boleh berasal dari anggota parpol. Sehingga, secara otomatis pasal tersebut bertentangan dengan UUD 1945 apabila tidak dimaknai melarang pengurus parpol mencalonkan diri menjadi anggota DPD. Mahkamah Konstitusi memiliki kewenangan untuk melakukan pengujian undang-undang terhadap konstitusi, memutus sengketa lembaga negara, memutus pembubaran partai politik, dan memutus perselisihan hasil pemilihan umum pada tingkat pertama dan terakhir. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi bersifat final artinya mencakup juga kekuatan mengikat (binding). Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi memiliki kekuatan mengikat, kekuatan pembuktian, dan kekuatan eksekutorial. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 30/PUU-XVI/2018 pada pelaksanaannya telah terjadi problematika mengenai berlakunya putusan tersebut yang dianggap berlaku surut. Mahkamah Agung yang membatalkan PKPU Nomor 26 Tahun 2018 karena berpendapat bahwa Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 30/PUU-XVI/2018 berlaku surut. Namun Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 30/PUU- XVI/2018 tetap harus dilaksanakan, sehingga timbul ketidakpastian hukum. Mahkamah Agung dinilai telah mengabaikan putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Dalam kasus pelaksanaan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 30/PUU-XVI/2018, penafsiran dari Mahkamah Konstitusi yang harus dijadikan pedoman dan dilaksanakan.

---

The background of this research is the existence of the Constitutional Court decision Number 30/PUU-XV/2018 against the Institution of the Regional Representatives Council, as well as the urgency of DPD RI membership originating from political parties as a result of the Constitutional Court decision Number 30/PUU-XV/2018. The method used in this study is to use a qualitative method with a normative juridical approach. The findings of this study are: The Constitutional Court in its decision emphasized that the phrase "other work" in Article 182 letter i of the Election Law is contrary to the 1945 Constitution and does not have conditionally binding legal force as long as it is not interpreted to include administrators of political parties (political parties). The Constitutional Court's decision had an impact on the ban on the candidacy of DPD members from elements of political party management. So, the DPD cannot be filled by political party officials. The "administrators of political parties" in this decision are administrators starting from the central level to the lowest level according to the organizational structure of the political party concerned. The Constitutional Court acknowledged that Article 182 letter i of the Election Law does not explicitly prohibit political party officials from nominating themselves as candidates for DPD members. Even though the Constitutional Court's stance based on previous decisions always emphasized that candidates for DPD members could not come from members of political parties. Thus, this article automatically contradicts the 1945 Constitution if it is not interpreted as prohibiting political party officials from nominating themselves to become members of the DPD. The Constitutional Court has the authority to review laws against the constitution, decide on disputes over state institutions, decide on the dissolution of political parties, and decide on disputes over the results of general elections at the first and last levels. The decision of the Constitutional Court is final, meaning that it includes binding powers. Decisions of the Constitutional Court have binding power, evidentiary power, and executorial power. In its implementation, there have been problems regarding the validity of the decision which is considered retroactive. The Supreme Court canceled PKPU Number 26 of 2018 because it was of the opinion that the Constitutional Court Decision Number 30/PUU-XVI/2018 was retroactive. However, the Constitutional Court Decision Number 30/PUU-XVI/2018 must still be implemented, resulting in legal uncertainty. The Supreme Court is considered to have ignored the decision of the Constitutional Court. In the case of the implementation of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 30/PUU-XVI/2018, it is the interpretation of the Constitutional Court that must be used as a guideline and implemented."