Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

The Principle of Prudence and Scope Limitation in the Discussion of the Indonesian Constitutional Court: Implications for Legal Reform and Judicial Decision Making Esfandiari, Fitria; Fadli, Moh.; Tegnan, Hilaire
Journal of Law and Legal Reform Vol. 6 No. 1 (2025): January, 2025
Publisher : Universitas Negeri Semarang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.15294/jllr.v6i1.8071

Abstract

The principle of precaution is understood as a preventive action in facing uncertainty or potential risks, especially when the potential impact of an action could be harmful. The Constitutional Court, whose decisions are final and binding, also applies this principle in its decision-making process. This research analyzes the relationship between the precautionary principle and the Justice Deliberation Meeting (RPH). The research method used was normative legal research with a statutory, conceptual, and philosophical approach. The study results affirm that the characteristics of Constitutional Court justices, viewed from the theory of authority, are unique. The theory of authority in law refers to the power or authority an institution or legal body possesses to make legitimate and binding decisions. In the context of the Constitutional Court, its decisions have a distinctiveness that reflects this institution’s special nature and responsibility. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court’s final decisions are binding, prioritize public interest, and use comprehensive evaluations in testing laws, reflecting the application of the precautionary principle in maintaining the integrity of the Constitution and justice for the entire society. In the case of RPH, justices should also apply the precautionary principle by considering all aspects and potential impacts of the law on the Constitution and the sense of justice in society.
Legal Social Justice in Appointment Non-Definitive Regional Heads toward Welfare State Siboy, Ahmad; Al-Fatih, Sholahuddin; Triasari, Devi; Tegnan, Hilaire
BESTUUR Vol 11, No 1 (2023): Bestuur
Publisher : Administrative Law Departement Faculty of Law Universitas Sebelas Mare

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.20961/bestuur.v11i1.71055

Abstract

The process of resolving administrative violations in the appointment of non-definitive regional heads that have not been regulated can threaten democratic values. Likewise, there has not been a judicial institution that has been given special authority to try it. This study aims to provide a regulatory model or settlement of administrative violations in the appointment of non-definitive regional heads in the welfare state. This study is a normative legal research that uses legal theory to settle administrative violations, legal protection, the welfare state, and Pancasila democracy. The study results show that the judicial mechanism for appointing non-definitive regional heads has a specificity that cannot be resolved through general State Administrative dispute resolution. In the USA, election disputes were resolved through the courts, whereas, in Australia, the Electoral Management Bodies determine the mayoral elections dispute. A design that can be chosen for the judicial process for appointing a non-definitive regional head is proposed, namely by granting authority to Bawaslu to resolve administrative violations through the Special Court mechanism. The granting of judicial authority can fulfill the basic principles of fast, open, and constitutional non-definitive regional head appointment dispute resolution.