Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Tesis ini mengkaji mengenai eksistensi penjelasan Undang Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945 dan kaitannya dengan status hukum Penjelasan Undang Undang Undang Dasar tersebut sebelum dan setelah perubahan Undang Undang di Indonesia. Adapun beberapa permasalahan yang dibahas dalam penelitian tesis ini meliputi: (i) hubungan keterkaitan antara penjelasan Undang Undang Dasar dengan Pembukaan dan Batang Tubuh; (ii) status hukum penjelasan Undang Undang Dasar setelah diberlakukannya Pasal II Aturan Tambahan dalam naskah perubahan Undang Undang Dasar; dan (iii) status hukum penjelasan Undang Undang Dasar menurut teori dan ilmu perundang-undangan. Metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam penelitian tesis ini adalah penelitian yuridis normatif dengan tipologi penelitian eksplanatoris-evaluatif. Untuk menunjang penelitian ini, metode pendekatan yang dilakukan meliputi pendekatan perunundang-undangan, pendekatan historis, pendekatan perbandingan dan pendekatan konseptual. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa penjelasan Undang Undang Dasar memiliki keterkaitan yang erat dengan Pembukaan dan Batang Tubuh dan memiliki hubungan yang bersifat kausal organis yang membentuk sistem konstitusi Indonesia secara utuh. Hal tersebut dikarenakan secara filosofis-historis, bahwa penjelasan mengandung pokok-pokok pikiran pembukaan dan pasal-pasal serta merupakan deskripsi sejarah yang jelas dan terang, serta menggambarkan keseluruhan proses, ide, suasana kebatinan dan latar belakang yang bersifat kronologis terhadap keseluruhan norma dalam konstitusi. Secara yuridis, eksistensi dan fungsi penjelasan sebagai bagian inti konstitusi diperkuat dalam TAP MPRS No. XX/MPRS/1966 dan secara sosiologis norma penjelasan dilaksanakan bersama-sama norma dalam Batang Tubuh. Adapun status hukum penjelasan Undang Undang Dasar menjadi kabur dan tidak jelas setelah berlakunya Pasal II Aturan Tambahan pada naskah Perubahan Undang Undang Dasar sehingga menyebabkan banyaknya tafsir mengenai status hukum penjelasan Undang Undang dasar dan melahirkan perdebetan antara pihak yang setuju dengan eksistensi penjelasan dan pihak yang menolak eksistensi penjelasan. Padahal secara teoritis, Pasal II Aturan Tambahan tersebut tidaklah menyebabkan hilangnya status keberlakuan Penjelasan jika dihadapkan dengan sistem amandemen dan metode adendum. Maka dari itu, diperlukan adanya rumusan norma yang jelas dan peblisit untuk menghapus keberlakuannya dalam sistem ketatanegaraan Indonesia. Selain itu, eksistensi penjelasan perlu diakui secara tegas sebagai bagian konstitusi Indonesia untuk menghindari perdebatan mengenai eksistensinya di masa yang akan datang.

---

This thesis examines the existence of the explanation of Indonesia’s Constitution of 1945 and its relation to the legal status of the Explanation of the Constitution before and after the amendment of constitution in Indonesia. Some of the problems discussed in this thesis research include: (i) the relationship between the explanation of the Constitution and the Preamble and the Torso of Constitution; (ii) the legal status of the explanation of the Constitution after the enactment of Article II of the Additional Rules in the amended text of the Constitution; and (iii) the legal status of the explanation of the Constitution according to the theory and science of legislation. The research method used in this thesis research is normative juridical research with a typology of explanatory-evaluative research. To support this research, the approach methods carried out include the statute approach, the historical approach, the comparative approach and the conceptual approach. The results of this study show that the explanation of the Constitution has a close relationship with the Preamble and torso and has an organizational causal relationship that forms the Indonesian constitutional system as a whole. This is because philosophically-historically, that explanation contains the points of the preamble mind and chapters and is a clear and clear description of history, as well as describing the whole process, ideas, atmosphere of spirituality and background that is chronological to the whole norm in the constitution. Juridically, the existence and function of explanation as a core part of the constitution is strengthened in the TAP MPRS No. XX/MPRS/1966 and sociologically the explanatory norms are implemented together with the norms in the Torso. The legal status of the explanation of the Constitution became vague and unclear after the enactment of Article II of the Additional Provision on the text of the Amendment to the Constitution, causing many interpretations of the legal status of the explanation of the Constitution and giving birth to a debit between parties who agree with the existence of explanations and parties who reject the existence of explanations. Whereas theoretically, Article II of the Additional Provision does not cause a loss of the status of the applicability of the Explanation if faced with a system of amendments and an addendum method. Therefore, it is necessary to formulate clear norms and regulations to remove their applicability in the Indonesian constitutional system. In addition, the existence of explanations needs to be expressly recognized as part of the Indonesian constitution to avoid debate about its existence in the future."

"Pengujian undang-undang terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945 (UUD NRI Tahun 1945) merupakan kewenangan yang diberikan UUD NRI Tahun 1945 kepada Mahkamah Konstitusi. Akibat hukum dari pengujian suatu undang-undang yang tidak sesuai dengan konstitusi ditentukan lebih lanjut dalam Pasal 56 dan Pasal 57 Undang-Undang Nomor 24 Tahun 2003 tentang Mahkamah Konstitusi, yaitu tidak mempunyai kekuatan hukum mengikat. Suatu undang-undang dinyatakan tidak mempunyai kekuatan hukum mengikat, dikarenakan prosedur pembentukan tidak sesuai UUD NRI Tahun 1945 atau materi muatan ayat, pasal, dan/atau bagian dari undang-undang bertentangan dengan UUD NRI Tahun 1945. Mendasari ketentuan Pasal 56 dan Pasal 57 Undang-Undang Mahkamah Konstitusi tersebut dapat dipahami bahwa inti dari kewenangan Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam pengujian undang-undang adalah untuk membatalkan norma yang bertentangan dengan UUD NRI Tahun 1945. Akan tetapi, dalam beberapa putusannya, Mahkamah Konstitusi tidak hanya membatalkan norma, melainkan juga membuat norma yang berakibat pada terjadinya perubahan UUD NRI Tahun 1945 melalui penafsiran. Kendati perubahan UUD NRI Tahun 1945 melalui penafsiran Mahkamah Konstitusi tersebut tidak ditentukan dalam UUD NRI Tahun 1945, namun hal tersebut diperlukan untuk memastikan UUD NRI Tahun 1945 tetap sesuai dengan kebutuhan dan perkembangan ketatanegaraan. Dengan menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif, tesis ini akan menjelaskan 2 (dua) pokok bahasan. Pertama, sebab terjadinya perubahan UUD NRI Tahun 1945 melalui penafsiran Mahkamah Konstitusi. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa Mahkamah Konstitusi melakukan penafsiran konstitusi dalam pengujian undang-undang dengan memberikan makna tekstual (textual meaning) terhadap UUD NRI Tahun 1945 melalui pemaknaan yang berbeda dari makna asli (original meaning) UUD NRI Tahun 1945. Sehingga, secara materiil terjadi perubahan UUD NRI Tahun 1945 yang disebabkan adanya penafsiran Mahkamah Konstitusi yang menganggap kalimat konstitusi tidak jelas atau tidak memberikan jalan keluar. Kedua, akibat hukum perubahan UUD NRI Tahun 1945 melalui penafsiran Mahkamah Konstitusi. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa: (i) terjadi perubahan makna tekstual terhadap UUD NRI Tahun 1945 yang berakibat pada terjadinya perubahan implementasi ketentuan UUD NRI Tahun 1945; dan (ii) wewenang MPR untuk mengubah UUD NRI Tahun 1945 tidak menjadi hilang setalah perubahan UUD NRI Tahun 1945 melalui penafsiran Mahkamah Konstitusi. Sebab, wewenang MPR untuk mengubah UUD NRI Tahun 1945 merupakan wewenang atribusi yang bersumber dari UUD NRI Tahun 1945, sehingga tidak akan hilang sepanjang tidak dihapus dari UUD NRI Tahun 1945.

---

The judicial review of the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia 1945 (UUD NRI Tahun 1945) is an authority given to the Constitutional Court by the UUD NRI Tahun 1945. The legal consequences of reviewing a law that is inconsistent with the constitution are further specified in Article 56 and Article 57 of Law Number 24 of 2003 concerning the Constitutional Court, namely that they do not have binding legal force. A law is declared to have no binding legal force because its formulation is not in accordance with the UUD NRI Tahun 1945 or the contents of paragraphs, articles and/or parts of the procedural law are contrary to the UUD NRI Tahun 1945. Based on the provisions of Article 56 and Article 57 of the Law It can be understood that the essence of the Constitutional Court's authority in reviewing laws is to abolish norms that are contrary to the UUD NRI Tahun 1945. However, in several of its decisions, the Constitutional Court not only annuls norms, but also makes norms that result in fatal in the occurrence of amendments to the UUD NRI Tahun 1945 through monitoring. Although the amendment to the UUD NRI Tahun 1945 through the stipulation of the Constitutional Court was not specified in the UUD NRI Tahun 1945, this was necessary to ensure that the UUD NRI Tahun 1945 remained in accordance with the needs and developments of the state administration. By using normative juridical research methods, this thesis will explain 2 (two) main topics. First, the reason for the amendment to the UUD NRI Tahun 1945 through the interpretation of the Constitutional Court. The results of the study show that the Constitutional Court interprets the constitution in judicial review by giving a textual meaning to the UUD NRI Tahun 1945 through a different meaning from the original meaning of the UUD NRI Tahun 1945. Thus, materially there was a change in the UUD NRI Tahun 1945 due to the interpretation of the Constitutional Court which considered the sentence of the constitution to be unclear or did not provide a way out. Second, the legal consequences of changing the UUD NRI Tahun 1945 through the interpretation of the Constitutional Court. The results showed that: (i) there was a change in the textual meaning of the UUD NRI Tahun 1945 which resulted in a change in the implementation of the provisions of the UUD NRI Tahun 1945; and (ii) the MPR’s authority to amend the UUD NRI Tahun 1945 was not lost after the amendment to the UUD NRI Tahun 1945 was through the interpretation of the Constitutional Court. This is because the MPR’s authority to amend the UUD NRI Tahun 1945 is an attribution authority originating from the UUD NRI Tahun 1945, so it will not be lost as long as it is not removed from the UUD NRI Tahun 1945"

"Pengujian konstitusionalitas Undang-undang No. 22 Tahun 2001 tentang Minyak dan Gas Bumi dan Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 2011 tentang Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang No. 24 Tahun 2003 tentang Mahkamah Konstitusi terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945. Tiga permasalahan yang dibahas dalam penelitian ini adalah mengenai (1) legal standing pemohon dalam pengujian Undang-undang Nomor 22 Tahun 2001 tentang Minyak dan Gas Bumi dan Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 2011 tentang Perubahan atas Undang-Undang Nomor 24 Tahun 2003 tentang Mahkamah Konstitusi; (2) pertimbangan hakim konstitusi memberikan legal standing kepada pemohon dalam pengujian Undang-undang Nomor 22 Tahun 2001 tentang Minyak dan Gas Bumi dan Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 2011 tentang Perubahan atas Undang-Undang Nomor 24 Tahun 2003 tentang Mahkamah Konstitusi; serta (3) usulan pemberian legal standing terhadap pemohon dalam perkara pengujian undang-undang di Mahkamah Konstitusi. Untuk menjawab permasalahan tersebut, penelitian ini menggunakan bahan hukum berupa putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi, peraturan perundang-undangan, serta tulisan-tulisan yang berkaitan dengan hukum tata negara. Adapun jenis penelitian ini adalah yuridisnormatif. Teori dalam menilai pemohon memiliki legal standing atau tidak, salah satunya adalah teori legal standing. Teori legal standing point d?interet point d?action yaitu tanpa kepentingan tidak ada suatu tindakan. Para pemohon dalam perkara No. 36/PUU-X/2012 dan No. 7/PUU-XI/2013 tidak memiliki legal standing dalam mengajukan permohonan. Karena para pemohon tidak mengalami langsung kerugian konstitusional yang bersifat spesifik (khusus) dan aktual dari dua (2) undang-undang yang diuji materi di Mahkamah Konstitusi atau setidaknya bersifat potensial yang menurut penalaran yang wajar dapat dipastikan akan terjadi. Mahkamah tidak tepat menilai para pemohon dalam perkara No. 36/PUUX/ 2012 dan No. 7/PUU-XI/2013 memiliki legal standing. Karena para pemohon tidak memiliki dasar (kepentingan) untuk mengajukan permohonan pengujian undang-undang. Selain itu terdapat dissenting opinion hakim konstitusi yang menguatkan bahwa para pemohon tidak memiliki legal standing. Sehingga Mahkamah Konstitusi tidak tepat menilai para pemohon memiliki legal standing. Perlu adanya perbaikan atas penentuan legal standing yang lebih ketat.

---

Year 2001 on Oil and Gas and Law No. 8 of 2011 on the Amendment of the Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court against the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia Year 1945, which was registered with the case number and case number 7/PUU-XI/2013 36/PUU-X/2012. This study departs from the appropriateness of the valuation given legal standing by the Constitutional Court. Clarity regarding the legal standing of the complex requires further assessment. Three issues are addressed in this study is about (1) the applicant's legal standing in the judicial review of Law No. 22 Year 2001 on Oil and Gas and Law No. 8 of 2011 on the Amendment Act No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court; (2) consideration of the constitutional judges give legal standing to the applicant in the judicial review of Law No. 22 Year 2001 on Oil and Gas and Law No. 8 of 2011 on the Amendment Act No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court; and (3) the proposed granting legal standing of the applicant in the case of judicial review in the Constitutional Court. To answer these problems, this study used a legal substance of the Constitutional Court decision, legislation, and writings relating to constitutional law. The type of this research is the juridical-normative.

Theory in assessing the applicant has legal standing or not, one of which is the theory of legal standing. Theory of point d'interact legal standing point d'action that is without the benefit of no action. No. The applicant in the case. 36/PUU-X/2012 and No.7/PUU-XI/2013 not have legal standing to appeal. Because the applicant did not experience direct losses specific constitutional (specifically) and the actual of two (2) laws that material tested in the Constitutional Court, or at least the potential is based on logical reasoning will surely occur. The Court did not precisely assess the applicant in the case of No.36/PUU-X/2012 and No.7/PUUXI/2013 have legal standing. Because the applicant has no basis (interest) to apply for judicial review. In addition there are constitutional judges dissenting opinion affirming that the applicant has no legal standing. So that the Constitutional Court did not assess the applicant's right to have legal standing. There needs to be an improvement over the determination of more stringent legal standing."

"[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.]"

"Salah satu permasalahan ketatanegaraan yang perlu dikaji secara akademis untuk mendapatkan jawaban akademis adalah permasalahan pengisian jabatan Presdien dan Wakil Presiden di Indonesia. Secara teoritis Pengisian jabatan dapat ditafsirkan dalam 2 (dua) persepktif, Pertama dalam artian sempit pengisian jabatan hanya dipahami sebagai sebuah proses pengisian jabatan apabila terjadi kekosongan jabatan Presiden dan Wakil Presiden saja. Kedua dalam artian luas pengisian jabatan dapat dipahami sebagai suatu proses atau mekanisme yang didalamnya memuat ketentuan tentang syarat calon, mekanisme pengisian jabatan, masa jabatan dan dalam hal terjadi kekosongan jabatan. Penelitian yang terangkum dalam Tesis ini mengkaji pengisian jabatan Presiden dan Wakil Presiden di Indonesia dalam artian luas. Di Indonesia pengaturan tentang pengisian jabatan Presiden dan Wakil Presiden ini tercantum dalam Ketentuan pasal 6, 6A, 7, dan pasal 8 Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 dan Undang-Undang RI No. 42 Tahun 2008 Tentang Pemilu Presiden dan Wakil Presiden Republik Indonesia. Bertitik tolak pada penjelasan sebelumnya, tesis ini menganalisis 3 permasalahan utama yang akan terbagi dalam beberapa sub-bab. yakni menganalisis pengisian jabatan Presiden dan Wakil Presdien di Indonesia khsusnya setelah perubahan, kemudian menganalisis dan mengkaji pengisian jabatan Presiden dan Wakil Presiden di beberapa negara dan terakhir merumuskan konsep ideal berkenaan dengan pengisian jabatan Presiden dan Wakil Presiden. Penelitian dalam Tesis ini diklasifikasikan sebagai penelitian dengan tipe decriptive explanatory, yakni dengan mengumpulkan dan menyimpulkan informasi tentang permasalahan yang diteliti. Sementara studi explanatory digunakan untuk menjelaskan dan menghitung informasi deskriptif. Pendekatan dalam penelitian ini adalah penelitian kualitatif. Selain itu untuk memperdalam analisis dalam tesis ini, metode comparative analysis digunakan untuk mendapatkan fokus studi yang khusus dalam masyarakat yang berbeda. Sebagai bahan perbandingan, tesis ini menganalisis 8 (delapan) negara yakni, Amerika Serikat, Republik Federasi Brazil, Republik Federasi Argentina, Republik Prancis, Singapura, Republik Philippines, Republik Islam Iran dan Federasi Russia Setelah melakukan analisis maka dapat disimpulkan bahwa Pengisian jabatan Presiden dan Wakil Presiden di Indonesia dari masa kemasa mengalami perkembangan yang sangat pesat. Pemilu Presiden dan Wakil Presiden di Indonesia mengalami pergeseran dari sistem indirect vote menjadi direct vote. Secara teoritis pemilu Presiden dan Wakil Presiden menganut sistem dukungan suara mutlak mayoritas (absolute majority) dengan Prinsip pemilu dua putaran (two round system).

---

One of constitutional issues which need to be reviewed academically in order to get the academic answer is the issue of filling the positions of president and vice president of Indonesia. The positions filling can be interpreted theoretically into two perspectives, first, in a narrow sense the positions filling can be seen as a process of positions filling if there are merely the vacancy of president and vice president position. Second, in a broad sense, the positions filling can be seen as a process or a mechanism which contain stipulation of the candidate, mechanism of positions filling, term of office, and vacancy of positions.

The summarized research in this thesis conducted the study of the positions filling of president and vice president of Indonesia in a broad sense. In Indonesia, the regulation of the positions filling of president and vice president is included in the provision of article 6, 6A, 7, and 8 the constitution of 1945 and the constitution of RI no. 42 2008 regarding the general election of president and vice president of Indonesia.

As noted above, this thesis analysed three main problems which will be divided into some sub-chapters. That are analysing the position filling of president and vice president in Indonesia, specifically after the alteration, analysing and reviewing the positions filling of president and vice president in some states, and ultimately formulating the ideal concept regarding the positions filling of president and vice president.

This research is classified as the descriptive explanatory, which is collecting and concluding the information about the observed problems. Whereas the explanatory study is conducted to describe and to account the descriptive information. This approach is a qualitative research. Moreover, in deepening the analysis, the comparative analysis method is conducted to get the specific study focus in diverse society.

As the matter of comparison, this thesis analysed eight states, US, republic federation of Brazil, republic federation of Argentina, republic of France, Singapore, republic of Philippines, republic of Islam Iran, and republic of Russia. After conducting the analysis, it can be concluded that positions filling of president and vice president in Indonesia from time to time undergoes a rapid development. The general election of president and vice president in Indonesia undergoes a shift from the indirect vote system into the direct vote. The general election of president and vice president theoretically embraces the absolute majority supporting system with the principle of two round systems in general election."