Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
1.556
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Ahkam: Jurnal Ilmu Syariah Jurnal Cita Hukum Jurnal Konstitusi Jurnal Penelitian Hukum De Jure Jurnal Ilmiah Kebijakan Hukum Jurnal HAM Jurnal Yudisial Jurnal Konstitusi Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan Jurnal Hukum dan Pembangunan Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia
Kurniawan, M. Beni
Unknown Affiliation
Religion Humanities Economics, Econometrics & Finance Education Environmental Science Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences Other

Published : 20 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 20 Documents
Search

 1   2 
PENAFSIRAN MAKNA “ALASAN SANGAT MENDESAK” DALAM PENOLAKAN PERMOHONAN DISPENSASI KAWIN Muhamad Beni Kurniawan; Dinora Refiasari
Jurnal Yudisial Vol 15, No 1 (2022): ARBITRIO IUDICIS
Publisher : Komisi Yudisial RI

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.29123/jy.v15i1.508

Abstract

ABSTRAK Riset Australia – Indonesia Partnership for Justice 2 (AIPJ 2) tahun 2019 menyatakan bahwa 99% permintaan dispensasi kawin di pengadilan dikabulkan oleh hakim. Sesuai dengan ketentuan Pasal 7 ayat (2) Undang-Undang Nomor 16 Tahun 2019 tentang Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 1974 tentang Perkawinan, apabila pernikahan hendak dilakukan bagi pria dan wanita yang belum berusia 19 tahun maka orang tua pihak pria dan/atau wanita dapat meminta dispensasi kepada pengadilan dengan alasan sangat mendesak disertai bukti-bukti pendukung yang cukup. Namun, terdapat pula putusan pengadilan yang menolak permintaan dispensasi kawin contohnya adalah Putusan Nomor 0127/Pdt.P/2021/PA.Kr. Pemohon mengajukan permintaan dispensasi kawin dengan dasar alasan yang sangat mendesak. Pihak wanita yang baru berusia 12 tahun telah berpacaran selama enam bulan dengan pihak pria yang berusia 30 tahun sehingga perlu dikawinkan untuk menghindari perzinahan. Hakim Pengadilan Agama Krui menolak permintaan tersebut. Berdasarkan latar belakang di atas, penelitian ini menganalisis penafsiran hakim terhadap makna “alasan sangat mendesak” dalam menolak permintaan dispensasi kawin. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode yuridis normatif dengan menelaah dokumen-dokumen hukum yang relevan mengenai dispensasi kawin. Hasil penelitian memperlihatkan bahwa hakim menggunakan metode penafsiran gramatikal, penafsiran historis, dan penafsiran autentik terhadap makna “alasan sangat mendesak.” Permintaan dispensasi kawin pada kasus ini tidak sesuai dengan prinsip maqasid syariah, perlindungan terhadap kesehatan dan psikologis anak, tidak beralasan, tidak memenuhi kriteria alasan mendesak dan tidak didukung oleh bukti-bukti yang cukup di persidangan.Kata kunci: dispensasi kawin; alasan mendesak; penafsiran hukum. ABSTRACT Research conducted by Australia – Indonesia Partnership for Justice 2 (AIPJ 2) in 2019 showed that 99% of motions of marriage dispensation submitted to the courts were granted by judges. Provision of Article 7 paragraph (2) of Law Number 16 of 2019 on Amendments to Law Number 1 of 1974 on Marriage stipulates that if men and women who are under 19 years old would like to marry, the parents of the men and/or the women can le a motion of marriage dispensation to the courts on the ground of imperative reason accompanied by suf cient supporting evidence. Nevertheless, there is a decision that denies the marriage dispensation motion for example Decision Number 0127/ Pdt.P/2021/PA.Kr. The Petitioner led a marriage dispensation motion to the court on the ground of imperative reason. A 12-year-old-girl and a 30-year-old man had been dating for six months. They needed to be married to avoid fornication. A judge of the Krui Religious District Court denied the motion. According to that background, this research analyzes the judge’s interpretation of ‘imperative reason’ meaning. This research applies a normative juridical method by assessing the legal documents concerning marriage dispensation. The result displays that the judge applies grammatical, historical, and authentic interpretations to the meaning of ‘imperative reason.’ In this case, the motion of marriage dispensation does not follow the principles of maqasid sharia, protection of children’s health and psychology, is unreasonable, does not meet the criteria of imperative reason, and is not supported by suf cient evidence at the trial. Keywords: marriage dispensation; imperative reason; legal interpretation.
Menakar Konstitusionalitas Penundaan dan/atau Pemotongan Anggaran Transfer ke Daerah dalam UU APBN M Beni Kurniawan
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol. 19 No. 4 (2022)
Publisher : Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia, Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31078/jk1945

Abstract

 Provisions regarding delays and/or withholding of transfers to regions by the Government in the APBN Law create problems when they are considered to create legal uncertainty regarding finances, which should be the domain of regional governments. This study aims to analyze: the constitutional urgency of the existence of a transfer budget to the regions from the center and the suitability of the sanctions for delaying and/or cutting budget transfers to the areas in the APBN Law. The study results show that transfers to the regions are a form of constitutional embodiment in the form of handing over financial resources to the areas as an actualization of effective fiscal decentralization. However, in practice, some regions do not comply with budget allocations, so the implications for regional financial management are not on target. On the other hand, the provision of sanctions for delaying and/or withholding funds transfers to the regions is in line with the financial construction of the unitary state with a decentralized system. This has also been strengthened through Constitutional Court Decision No. 5/PUU-XVI/2018.
Menakar Konstitusionalitas Penundaan dan/atau Pemotongan Anggaran Transfer ke Daerah dalam UU APBN M Beni Kurniawan
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol 19, No 4 (2022)
Publisher : The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (323.729 KB) | DOI: 10.31078/jk1945

Abstract

 Provisions regarding delays and/or withholding of transfers to regions by the Government in the APBN Law create problems when they are considered to create legal uncertainty regarding finances, which should be the domain of regional governments. This study aims to analyze: the constitutional urgency of the existence of a transfer budget to the regions from the center and the suitability of the sanctions for delaying and/or cutting budget transfers to the areas in the APBN Law. The study results show that transfers to the regions are a form of constitutional embodiment in the form of handing over financial resources to the areas as an actualization of effective fiscal decentralization. However, in practice, some regions do not comply with budget allocations, so the implications for regional financial management are not on target. On the other hand, the provision of sanctions for delaying and/or withholding funds transfers to the regions is in line with the financial construction of the unitary state with a decentralized system. This has also been strengthened through Constitutional Court Decision No. 5/PUU-XVI/2018.
KONSTITUTIONALITAS UNDANG-UNDANG NO 16 TAHUN 2017 TENTANG PENETAPAN PERPPU NOMOR 2 TAHUN 2017 TENTANG ORGANISASI MASYARAKAT DITINJAU DARI UUD 1945 DAN KONSEP NEGARA HUKUM (RECHSTAAT) Kurniawan, M. Beni
Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan
Publisher : UI Scholars Hub

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

This research is a normative study that is perscriptive in order to provide solutions to the problems of Civil Society Organizations in Indonesia. This paper study theConstitutionality of Article 61 and 62 of Act Number 16 of 2017 on Stipulating Government Regulation In Lieu of Law No. 2 of 2017 which regulates the Dissolution of CSOs if reviewed from the 1945 Constitution and the Rule of Law’s Concept. As a result of the research can be concluded that Article 61 and 62 of Act Number 16 of 2017 On Stipulating Perppu No. 2 of 2017 which gives authority to the government to dissolve CSOs unilaterally is Inconstitutional because Contrary to Article 1 paragraph 3 of Indonesia as a State of Law and Article 28 E paragraph 3 concerning freedom of association. And also there needs to be a revision of Government Regulation In Lieu of Law No. 2 of 2017 with still giving authority to the Judicial Boards (MA or MK) in deciding the dissolution of CSOs. It is also necessary to limit the time to the Judicial Boards in deciding cases of the dissolution of CSOs, to avoid an uncertain case and an inefficient time
Transformation of the Constitutional Justices Tenure After the Constitutional Court’s New Act: Transformasi Masa Jabatan Hakim Konstitusi Pasca Perubahan Undang-Undang Mahkamah Konstitusi Kurniawan, M Beni; Refiasari, Dinora
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol. 21 No. 1 (2024)
Publisher : Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia, Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31078/jk2112

Abstract

The periodization system in the constitutional judges’ position has the opportunity to undermine the judges’ independence. the opportunity to be re-elected as an opening for political transactions between constitutional judges with the proposing institution. The enactment of Act No. 7/2020 is a new era for the system used in the constitutional judges’ term. The periodization of the Constitutional Court judges’ term was replaced based on the age limit of 70 years. This research examines the design of Constitutional Court judges’ terms after the enactment Act No. 7/ 2020. This article is written based on normative legal research. This study concludes that the transformation of the Constitutional Court judges’ term into non-periodization aims to strengthen the independence of Constitutional judges from any intervention. At the same time as a fortress from external pressure and ensures that judges do not face conflicts of interest arising from the possibility of extending the term.
Mewujudkan Keadilan Realitas dalam Putusan Penguasaan Anak Melalui Pendekatan Interkoneksi Sistem Kurniawan, M. Beni
Jurnal Penelitian Hukum De Jure Vol 25, No 2 (2025): July Edition
Publisher : Law and Human Rights Policy Strategy Agency, Ministry of Law and Human Rights of The Repub

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.30641/dejure.2025.V25.103-114

Abstract

Child custody disputes are one of the absolute authorities of religious courts. In 2023 there were 1526 (one thousand five hundred and twenty six) cases of child custody disputes examined and decided by all religious courts in Indonesia. The problem is that even though the court has given a decision that is legally binding on the child custody holder, the reality is that many of the religious court decisions are not heeded by the losing party due to several factors, including hiding the child, taking the child away, or inciting the child, which has an impact on the non-executionability of the child custody decision. Departing from this problem, this paper formulates the problem of how legal regulations in Indonesia regulate child custody and how the application of the interconnection system in carrying out child custody decisions. This paper applies normative juridical research methods by examining related legal documents as the main source of reference. the author's findings that for the realization of reality justice in child custody decisions, the Court can adopt an inter-connection system by involving relevant to prevent non-executable decisions.
Mobilisasi Hukum dan Advokasi Kebijakan oleh Organisasi Masyarakat Sipil dalam Perubahan Batas Usia Perkawinan: Dari Judicial Review ke Revisi UU Perkawinan Zein, Reshandi Ade; Kurniawan, M. Beni; Subarkah, Alfianita Atiq Junaelis; Musdin, Rasyid
Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia Vol 22, No 3 (2025): Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia - September 2025
Publisher : Direktorat Jenderal Peraturan Perundang-undang, Kementerian Hukum

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.54629/jli.v22i3.1492

Abstract

Organisasi Masyarakat Sipil (OMS) memiliki peran fundamental dalam melakukan mobilisasi hukum dan advokasi kebijakan terhadap perubahan undang-undang, dalam penelitian ini terkait pengaturan batasan minimum usia perkawinan. Ketentuan Undang-undang Nomor 1 Tahun 1974 yang mengatur batas minimal usia perkawinan 16 tahun bagi Perempuan dan 19 tahun bagi laki-laki mengandung bias gender dan diskriminasi terhadap gender tertentu. Beranjak dari fenomena sosial tersebut, OMS melakukan mobilisasi hukum dengan mengajukan judicial review di Mahkamah Konstitusi, hingga advokasi ke parlemen yang output-nya melahirkan Undang-Undang Nomor 16 Tahun 2019 di mana terjadi perubahan signifikan terhadap batas usia minimal perkawinan menjadi 19 tahun bagi Perempuan dan laki-laki. Rumusan masalah yang dikaji dalam penelitian ini mengenai pengaruh OMS terhadap pengaturan batas minimum usia perkawinan melalui proses judicial review dan advokasi yang dilakukan OMS terhadap perubahan Pasal 7 ayat (1) UU Perkawinan berkenaan batas minimum usia perkawinan. Metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah yuridis-empiris melalui telaah terhadap sumber kepustakaan dan wawancara terhadap salah satu OMS, yaitu Koalisi Perempuan Indonesia. Dengan menggunakan konsep legal mobilization oleh OMS, temuan penulis bahwa pertama, OMS memiliki peran penting dalam melakukan mobilisasi hukum dengan strateginya dapat membawa isu batas minimum usia perkawinan untuk diujikan ke Mahkamah Konstitusi dan tuntutannya berhasil membawa perubahan ketentuan usia perkawinan. Kedua, OMS juga memiliki pengaruh kapasitas untuk melakukan advokasi secara formal dan informal kepada anggota legislatif untuk mengupayakan pembaruan Undang-Undang Perkawinan.
Problematika dalam Pengisian Jabatan Pimpinan Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi (Kajian Kritis Terhadap Kewenangan DPR dalam Memilih Pimpinan KPK) Kurniawan, Muhamad Beni
Jurnal Ilmiah Kebijakan Hukum Vol 12, No 2 (2018): July Edition
Publisher : Law and Human Rights Research and Development Agency

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (482.491 KB) | DOI: 10.30641/kebijakan.2018.V12.137-150

Abstract

Mekanisme pemilihan pimpinan KPK melalui DPR, sebagai bentuk berjalannnya check and balances antara kekuasaan Presiden dan DPR. Namun jika DPR dalam pemilihan pimpinan KPK tidak mereprsentasikan suara rakyat melainkan memilih pimpinan KPK guna melindungi proyek-proyek illegal untuk menambah pundi-pundi uang mereka, pada posisi inilah akan menimbulkan masalah. KPK sulit berjalan secara objektif karena adanya konflik interest antara pimpinan KPK dan DPR yaitu ketika mengusut anggota Dewan yang telah memilih mereka sebagai Pimpinan KPK. Rumusan masalah Bagaimana mekanisme dalam pengisian jabatan pimpinan Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi? Metode Penelitian yang digunakan adalah yuridis normatif dengan menggunakan data sekunder. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan evaluasi terhadap mekanisme dalam pengisian Jabatan Pimpinan KPK yaitu (1) memperkuat Peran Panitia seleksi (Pansel). Dalam menjamin keobjektifan dan jalannya mekanisme check and balances dalam pemilihan pimpinan KPK, maka Pansel dapat berjumlah 7 orang yang terdiri dari unsur pemerintah, unsur DPR, unsur Yudikatif, unsur praktisi, dan unsur akademisi. Kewenangan DPR direduksi yaitu hanya mengajukan salah satu anggotanya untuk menjadi anggota Pansel KPK dari unsur DPR. (2) membentuk badan khusus yang independen dalam pemilihan pimpinan KPK dimana Presiden dan DPR tidak dapat mengintervensi Badan tersebut. Presiden hanya berwenang menetapkan calon pimpinan KPK yang dipilih oleh Badan tersebut  dengan Keputusan Presiden.
IMPLEMENTATION OF ELECTRONIC TRIAL (E-LITIGATION) ON THE CIVIL CASES IN INDONESIA COURT AS A LEGAL RENEWAL OF CIVIL PROCEDURAL LAW Kurniawan, M. Beni
Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan Vol 9 No 1 (2020)
Publisher : Pusat Strategi Kebijakan Hukum dan Peradilan Mahkamah Agung RI

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25216/jhp.9.1.2020.43-70

Abstract

Civil case trial based on HIR/RBg takes months or even more than a year, which sets a bad precedent for judicial institution because it tends to be complicated, and closed. A proverb voiced, “Reporting the loss of goats instead of missing cows,” increasingly the public’s negative impression towards judicial institution. Responding to these conditions, the Supreme Court issued a Supreme Court Regulation (PERMA) No. 1 of 2019 concerning Case Administration and Court Trials Electronically. The research questions, how is the implementations of electronic trial (e-litigation) on civil cases in Indonesia judicial institutions? The research method used is literature study, in particular normative legal research, which is descriptive analytical. PERMA No 1 of 2019 has provided benefits for internal judiciary and justice seekers. Where case registration is done electronically without needing go to court. The payment of court fees is simply by transferring to a virtual account and the summons of parties are carried out electronically to an electronic domicile. It is not just limited to that the trial is also carried out electronically, from the first trial until the reading of the judge’s verdict. However, there are challenges for the successful of electronic litigation from the aspect of legal substance, the electronic trial regulated at PERMA rule out HIR/R.Bg whose hierarchy is above of that PERMA. In aspects of legal structure, It is needed the completed infrastructure and human resources. As well as aspects of legal culture, the enthusiasm of justice seekers who use e-court services.
DISPARITAS PUTUSAN PENGADILAN TERKAIT LEGALISASI NIKAH BEDA AGAMA Kurniawan, M Beni; Refiasari, Dinora; Ramadhani, Sri Ayu
Jurnal Yudisial Vol. 16 No. 3 (2023): DISPARITAS PUTUSAN
Publisher : Komisi Yudisial RI

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.29123/jy.v16i3.660

Abstract

Demografi Indonesia sebagai bangsa yang berpenduduk heterogen membuka potensi terjadinya perkawinan lintas agama. Namun keabsahan pernikahan berbeda agama di Indonesia masih menjadi polemik yang dapat diamati dari disparitas putusan pengadilan perihal legalisasi perkawinan berbeda agama. Melalui penelitian ini, ada dua putusan pengadilan yang memutus berbeda mengenai pengesahan perkawinan berbeda agama. Pertama, Putusan Nomor 2/Pdt.P/2022/PN.Mak menerima permohonan pencatatan pernikahan berbeda agama. Kedua, Putusan Nomor 71/Pdt.P/2017/PN.Bla yang menolak permohonan tersebut. Berangkat dari fenomena di atas, studi ini mengkaji penyebab terjadinya disparitas putusan pengadilan dalam mengadili perkawinan berlainan agama. Metode yang dipakai dalam kajian ini berupa penelitian yuridis normatif di mana hasilnya menunjukkan bahwa terjadinya disparitas antara kedua putusan tersebut yang dilatarbelakangi oleh kesamaran norma yang tidak tegas melarang atau mengizinkan pernikahan berbeda agama. Untuk menuntaskan konflik norma terkait perkawinan beda agama perlu dilakukan revisi atas ketentuan Pasal 35 Undang-Undang Administrasi Kependudukan, baik melalui mekanisme judicial review ke Mahkamah Konstitusi maupun perubahan secara menyeluruh oleh DPR. Untuk mencegah disparitas putusan hakim dalam mengadili perkara perkawinan berbeda agama, hakim dalam menilai keabsahan perkawinan harus merujuk pada konstitusi, Undang-Undang Perkawinan, Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 68/PUU-XII/2014 dan Nomor 24/PUU-XII/2022, dan SEMA Nomor 2 Tahun 2023 yang substansinya bahwa pengadilan tidak menerima permohonan pencatatan perkawinan antara mereka yang memiliki perbedaan agama dan kepercayaan.
Co-Authors Dinora Refiasari Musdin, Rasyid Ramadhani, Sri Ayu Refiasari, Dinora Subarkah, Alfianita Atiq Junaelis Zein, Reshandi Ade