Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"DPR cenderung distigmatisasi sebagai lembaga legislatif sentral dalam pembentukan UU. Namun peran legislatif pembentukan UU tersebut tidak pernah dilaksanakan oleh DPR secar memadai. Semua UU yang dihasilkan sejak tahun 1971 adalah produk presiden (pemerintah). Tulisan di bawah ini mencoba meninjau posisi otoritas legislatif presiden dan DPR, baik secara normatif-gramatikal maupun melalui nuasa sejarah dan praktek ketatanegaraan. Tulisan ini akan menjawab lembaga tinggi manakah yang layak diposisikan sebagai lembaga legislatif utama."

"Perubahan terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945 didasarkan pada ketentuan Pasal 37 sebagai bentuk pembatasan terhadap prosedur perubahan sedangkan menyangkut pembatasan substansi materi muatan terlihat belum diakomodasi dengan baik. Konstitusi Republik Indonesia baik dalam pelaksanaan maupun perubahannya menunjukkan diperlukannya urgensi pembatasan materi muatan. Dalam perubahan pertama hingga keempat masih belum maksimal dalam menerapkan paradigma serta hakikat dari konstitusi itu sendiri. Hal ini terlihat dari beberapa ketentuan perubahan yang dilakukan belum menunjukkan pelaksanaan prinsip konstituen rakyat secara konsisten yang diwarnai dengan kepentingan politik jangka pendek, perdebatan mengenai bentuk perubahan, dan kepentingan mengubah prinsip fundamental yang terdapat dalam Undang-Undang Dasar Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945. Pendekatan perbandingan konstitusi pada beberapa negara lain diperlukan sebagai salah satu sumber referensi sehingga diperoleh pengaturan yang sesuai dengan nilai yang hidup dalam masyarakat (living constitution) sehingga perubahan materi muatan yang tidak seharusnya dapat dikurangi di masa mendatang. Pembatasan secara substantive unamendabillity expilicit dipandang efektif namun terlihat masih minim dalam penerapannya yaitu hanya terdapat dalam ketentuan Pasal 37 ayat (5) terhadap bentuk negara kesatuan tidak dapat diubah. Lebih dari itu beberapa prinsip yang menjamin tegaknya konstitusionalisme yaitu prinsip kedaulatan rakyat, prinsip demokrasi dan prinsip negara hukum harus tetap diperhatikan dalam perubahan Undang-Undang Dasar Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945.

---

Amendments to the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia are based on the provisions of Article 37 as a form of procedural limitation of changes, while restrictions on the substance of the material content have not been accommodated properly. This can be seen from several provisions resulting from the amendments that have not shown the implementation of the principle of the people's constituents consistently, which are colored by short-term political interests, debates on the form of change, and interests in changing the basic principles contained in the constitution. Comparison of constitutions in several other countries is needed as a reference so that regulations are obtained that are in accordance with the values ​​that live in society (living constitution). Substantive unamendability explicit is considered effective but is still minimal in its application. Article 37 paragraph (5) is the only form of explicit substantive unamendability limitation, namely that the form of a unitary state cannot be changed. However, more than that, several principles that guarantee the upholding of constitutionalism, namely the principle of people's sovereignty, the principle of democracy and the principle of the rule of law, must still be considered in the amendments to the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia."

"This study seeks to explain the process of Audit Board article amendment in the constitutional reform as the source of current BPK’s performance, by answering questions: how much do informal networks influence constitutional maker’s decision and to what extent do the external pressures influence the informal networks on the amendment of Audit Board article? This study used a quantitative method to develop variables of social networks in examining how much informal networks based on ideational informal networks influence constitutional makers’ voting between 1999 and 2001 in six meetings which contained voting out of 39 meetings of the Audit Board article amendment. Illustrating statistically significant results of the influence of ideational informal networks on the constitutional makers’ decisions and the influence of high political effect (president’s preference) and strong party pressure on the ideational informal networks, this study shows that “the progressive liberal bloc” which can enforce constitutional reform – particularly Audit Board article though not full-scale reform – within the “ineffective formal institution” as it happened in transition era, has shown how informality’s outcome is in line with formality’s outcome, so it causes improved performance of Audit Board today. Because the statistical evidence talks to broader topics about the people representative bodies and governance, this study suggests paying more attention to the factors of constitutional makers’ networks, on and off the meetings of constitutional reform."