Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"This book is the result of the doctoral research originally entitled: Towards a conception of limited rationality in constitutional adjudication : a critical response to balancing in German and Brazilian constitutional cultures, which was carried out at the Humboldt University of Berlin."

"Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam menjalankan kewenangan menguji Undang-undang terhadap UUD 1945 berperan sebagai negative legislator. Dalam perkembangannya seringkali Mahkamah Konstitusi tidak hanya memutus apakah suatu norma bertentangan dengan UUD 1945 atau tidak tetapi juga merumuskan norma baru. Sikap aktif Mahkamah Konstitusi tersebut dianggap sebagai bentuk penerapan prinsip judicial activism. Judicial Activism dipahami sebagai dinamisme para hakim ketika membuat putusan tanpa melalui batas-batas konstitusi. Namun banyaknya kritik terhadap prinsip judicial activism melahirkan doktrin judicial restraint sebagai sebuah antitesa. Dalam doktrin judicial restraint, pengadilan harus dapat melakukan pengekangan diri dari kecenderungan ataupun dorongan untuk bertindak layaknya sebuah miniparliament. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi yang menerapkan prinsip ini pun tidak sedikit jumlahnya. Namun hingga kini penerapan kedua prinsip tersebut oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi belum jelas. Oleh karena itu, skripsi ini ingin membahas mengenai penerapan kedua prinsip tersebut dalam putusan pengujian Undang-undang di Mahkamah Konstitusi. Metode penulisan yang digunakan adalah yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan kualitatif dan menggunakan bahan kepustakaan serta wawancara. Dari hasil riset didapati bahwa belum adanya parameter bagi Mahkamah Konstitusi untuk memutuskan kapan dan dalam keadaan yang bagaimana bisa menerapkan prinsip judicial restraint dan judicial activism menimbulkan kerancuan. Prinsip judicial restraint dan judicial activism tidak bisa disamakan penerapannya dalam setiap kasus karena masing-masing kasus memiliki persoalan yang berbeda. Tidak ada satu prinsip yang lebih baik atau yang lebih tinggi dari prinsip lainnya, sehingga tidak bisa dikatakan jika Mahkamah Konstitusi lebih baik mengedepankan penerapan judicial restraint dibanding judicial activism maupun sebaliknya.

---

The Constitutional Court in executing its authority to review the constitutionality of the law act as negative legislator. In its development the Constitutional Court often to not only decide whether a norm contradict to the constitution or not but also formulate a new norm. The Constitutional Court 39s active stance is considered as a form of applying the judicial activism principle. Judicial Activism is understood as the dynamism of judges when making decisions without going through the boundaries of the constitution. However, many criticisms towards judicial activism causing judicial restraint doctrine to rise as an antithetical view In judicial restraint doctrin, the court must be able to exercise self restraint from the tendency to act like a miniparliament. There are many Constitutional Court's cases that applies the judicial restraint principle. However, until now the application of both principles by the Constitutional Court is not clear. Therefore, this thesis would like to examine about the application of both principles on judicial review cases in Constitutional Court. Research method used is normative juridical writing with qualitative approach from library materials and interview.

The research results found that there is no parameter yet for the Constitutional Court to decide when and under what circumstances to apply the judicial restraint and judicial activism principles. It cause confusion. Nevertheless, the judicial restraint and judicial activism principle can not be equated with the application in each case because each case has different problems. There is no one principle that is better or higher than other principles, so it can not be said if the Constitutional Court is better put forward the implementation of judicial restraint than judicial activism or vice versa. "

"The power of national and transnational constitutional courts to issue binding rulings in interpreting the constitution or an international treaty has been endlessly discussed. What does it mean for democratic governance that non-elected judges influence politics and policies? The authors of Judicial Power - legal scholars, political scientists, and judges - take a fresh look at this problem. To date, research has concentrated on the legitimacy, or the effectiveness, or specific decision-making methods of constitutional courts. By contrast, the authors here explore the relationship among these three factors. This book presents the hypothesis that judicial review allows for a method of reflecting on social integration that differs from political methods, and, precisely because of the difference between judicial and political decision-making, strengthens democratic governance. This hypothesis is tested in case studies on the role of constitutional courts in political transformations, on the methods of these courts, and on transnational judicial interactions."

"Kemerdekaan Kekuasaan Kehakiman adalah sesuatu yang dijamin oleh Pasal 24 ayat (1) Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945 (UUD 1945). Dalam Pasal 24 ayat (3) UUD 1945 juga mengatur keberadaan badan-badan yang fungsinya berkaitan dengan kekuasaan kehakiman. Tulisan ini membahas ruang lingkup badan-badan yang berkaitan dengan kekuasaan kehakiman dan bagaimana Konsep Ideal Independensi badan-badan yang fungsinya berkaitan dengan kekuasaan kehakiman di Indonesia. Tulisan ini menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif yakni menggunakan sumber hukum primer, sekunder dan tersier sebagai bahan penelitian. Tulisan ini menemukan ruang lingkup badan-badan yang fungsinya berkaitan dengan kekuasaan kehakiman adalah badan yang memiliki fungsi penyelidikan dan penyidikan, penuntutan, pelaksanaan putusan, pemberian jasa hukum, dan penyelesaian sengketa di luar pengadilan yakni di antaranya adalah Kepolisian, Kejaksaan, Lembaga Pemasyarakatan, Organisasi Advokat, dan Badan Penyelesaian Sengketa di Luar Pengadilan. Namun tidak semua dari fungsi-fungsi tersebut telah terdapat badannya yang diatur dalam undang-undang. Tulisan ini mengusulkan idealnya dilakukan perubahan pengaturan kelembagaan dan pembentukan badan baru untuk melaksanakan ketentuan Pasal 24 ayat (3) UUD 1945 yakni perubahan pada lembaga Kejaksaan, pembentukan Organisasi Advokat oleh negara, pembentukan Badan Eksekusi Negara, dan pembentukan Badan Penyelesaian Sengketa Nasional, sehingga independensi dari badan-badan tersebut tetap terjaga sebagai yang terkait atau bagian dari kekuasaan kehakiman.

---

This thesis examines the scope and concept of bodies related to the judiciary's The Independence of the Judicial Power is guaranteed by Article 24, paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD 1945). Article 24, paragraph (3) of the UUD 1945 also regulates the existence of bodies related to Judicial Power. This thesis discusses the scope and concept of these bodies that are related to Judicial Power and the ideal concept of their independence in Indonesia. This research used legal-normative method, employing primary, secondary, and tertiary legal sources. The thesis finds that the scope of bodies related to Judicial Power includes those with functions in investigation and prosecution, execution of court decisions, provision of legal services, and dispute resolution outside the court, i.e., the Police, the Prosecutor's Office, Penitentiary Institutions, Bar Associations, and Resolution of Disputes outside of the Judicial System Bodies. However, not all of these functions have corresponding bodies established by law, thus this thesis proposes institutional arrangements should be changed, and several new bodies should be established to implement the provisions of Article 24, paragraph (3) of the UUD 1945. These changes include reforms to the Attorney General's Office, the establishment of a State Bar Association, the creation of a National Execution Body, and the formation of National Dispute Resolution Body, so that the independence of these bodies is maintained as related or part of the judicial power."

"Pasal 24 Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia (UUD 1945) yang telah mengalami perubahan menyebutkan bahwa kekuasaan kehakiman di Republik Indonesia adalah ?kekuasaan kehakiman yang merdeka?. Hakim disini memegang peran sentral dalam peradilan sebagai personifikasi dari peradilan, sehingga kedudukan hakim dan kemerdekaan hakim harus dijamin dalam sebuah undang-undang (UU). Saat ini, kekuasaan kehakiman diatur dalam UU No. 48 Tahun 2009 tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman, oleh karena itu tujuan utama dari penulisan skripsi ini adalah untuk menganalisis materi UU No. 48 Tahun 2009 dalam melindungi kemerdekaan hakim di Republik Indonesia berdasarkan prinsip-prinsip kekuasaan kehakiman yang terdapat pada UUD 1945 dan instrumen-instrumen internasional. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian normatif yang dilengkapi dengan pendekatan sejarah, perbandingan dengan negara lain dan pendekatan kasus. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa UU No. 48 Tahun 2009 telah memiliki norma-norma yang mengatur kemerdekaan hakim, namun tetap masih terdapat kekurangan dan ketidaklengkapan dari materi UU No. 48 Tahun 2009 dalam melindungi kemerdekaan hakim, sehingga perlu diadakan perbaikan terhadap UU No. 48 Tahun 2009.

---

Article 24 of The 1945 Amended Constitution of Republic of Indonesia stated that "The judicial power branch shall be independent". In here, judge has a central role on the judiciary, that judge as the personification of judiciary, therefore judge's status and independence shall be secured by law. Now, the judicial power is regulated on Act No. 48 Year 2009 (The Judical Power Act), so then the purpose of this writing is to analyze the substance of Act No. 48 Year 2009 in accomodating judge's independence in the Republic of Indonesia based on the judicial principles on the 1945 Constitution and international instruments. This is a normative study and also be improved by historical approach, comparative approach and case study method. The result of this study showed that the Act of No. 48 Year 2009 has contained the general norms to protect judge?s independence, but still has to be revised because of its material incompleteness in order to protect judge's independence."

"More and more environmental cases are being heard and decided by international courts and tribunals which lack special environmental competence. This situation raises fundamental questions of legitimacy of the environmental practice of international courts. This book addresses inter alia questions of who has legal standing to bring an environmental claim before an international court, on which legal norms is the case decided and whether judges have the necessary expertise to adjudicate environmental cases of often complex nature. It analyses which challenges international courts face, which possibilities they have and which advances international judicial practice has been able to make in protecting the environment. Through the prism of legitimacy important insights emerge as to whether international courts and tribunals are fit for addressing some of the most pressing global challenges of our time"