Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2020 - 2025
4.208
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal DE JURE Syiar Hukum: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum Jurnal Dinamika Hukum Hukum Islam Jurnal Cita Hukum Unifikasi: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum Jurnal IUS (Kajian Hukum dan Keadilan) Jurnal Hukum IUS QUIA IUSTUM UIR LAW REVIEW Jurnal Selat Lex Librum: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum Awang Long Law Review Jurnal Yudisial PROGRESIF: Jurnal Hukum Pagaruyuang Law Journal Borneo Law Review Journal LEGAL BRIEF ARSY : Jurnal Aplikasi Riset kepada Masyarakat Indonesian Community Journal Yuridika Jurnal Ilmu Hukum Journal of Law, Environmental and Justice Jurnal Hukum dan Pembangunan SASI
Suparto Suparto
Fakultas Hukum Universitas Islam Riau
Religion Agriculture, Biological Sciences & Forestry Humanities Computer Science & IT Economics, Econometrics & Finance Environmental Science Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Public Health Social Sciences Other

Published : 44 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 3 Documents
Search
Journal : Unifikasi: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum

 1 
The Implication of Constitutional Court Decision Number 36/PUU-XV/2017 on the Independence of Corruption Eradication Commission Suparto Suparto; Dedy Gusniawan
UNIFIKASI : Jurnal Ilmu Hukum Vol 7, No 1 (2020)
Publisher : Universitas Kuningan

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25134/unifikasi.v7i1.2547

Abstract

This study aims to find out the considerations of the Constitutional Court Judge in issuing Constitutional Court Decision No. 36/PUU-XV/2017 as well as to identify the implications of the Decision on the Independence of Corruption Eradication Commission. The method used in this study was normative juridical method. The data collected through library research were then analyzed analytic-descriptive. The formulations of the problem are; 1) What are the considerations of the Constitutional Court Judge in issuing Constitutional Court Decision No. 36/PUU-XV/2017 against judicial review of Law No. 17 of 2017 concerning MD3? and 2) What are the implications of the Constitutional Court Decision No. 36/PUU-XV/2017 against judicial review of Law No. 17 of 2017 concerning MD3 on the independence of Corruption Eradication Commission? As results, it was found that; 1) in Constitutional Court Decision No. 36/PUU-XV/2017, the Constitutional Court states that the inquiry right owned by the House of Representatives over the Corruption Eradication Commission is constitutional as long as it does not relate to the authority of investigation and prosecution owned by the Corruption Eradication Commission with the consideration that the Corruption Eradication Commission is a state institution that includes to the realm of executives; and 2) The House of Representatives will give a strong influence on the Corruption Eradication Commission even though the inquiry right owned by the House of Representatives cannot touch the authority of the Corruption Eradication Commission in conducting investigations and prosecutions. However, there is an indication that the effort to provide inquiry right is not a legal effort but rather a political effort which is widely applied in countries adhering to a parliamentary system where the parliament tends to be more dominant than the executive. Hence, it can be concluded that; 1) in this Decision, the Constitutional Court Judge did not use a stronger grammatical and systematic interpretation based on the original intense. Besides, this Decision is ambiguous and potentially contradicts with the previous Decision, namely Constitutional Court Decision No.012-016-019/PUU-IV/2006; and 2)  there will be consequences for the Corruption Eradication Commission in the future, especially in terms of independence, since it can be used as an object of inquiry right by the House of Representatives. Implikasi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 36/Puu-Xv/2017 Terhadap Independensi Komisi Pemberantasan KorupsiTujuan dari pennelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui pertimbangan Hakim Konstitusi dalam memutus perkara No. 36/PUU-XV/2017 dan Implikasi dari putusan tersebut terhadap Independensi Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi. Metode penelitian yang digunakan yaitu  hukum normatif dengan cara studikepustakaan,data yang digunakan  adalah data sekunder dananalisis data dilakukan secara deskriptis analitis. Rumusan masalahnya  adalah (1). Bagaimanakah pertimbangan Hakim  Konstitusi dalam memutus perkara No. 36/PUU-XV/2017 terhadap pengujian UU No. 17 Tahun 2017 Tentang MD3 dan (2). Bagaimanakah implikasi putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi  No.36/PUU-XV/2017 terhadap pengujian UU No. 17 Tahun 2017 Tentang MD3 terhadap independensi Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi. Berdasarkan penelitian diperoleh hasil (1) MK dalam putusan No. 36/PUU-XV/2017 menyatakan  bahwa kewenangan hak angket yang dilakukan  Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat  terhadap Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi adalah konstitusional sepanjang tidak menyangkut kewenangan penyidikan, penyelidikan, dan penuntutan yang dimiliki oleh Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi, dengan pertimbangan  Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi adalah lembaga negara yang termasuk ranah eksekutif. (2). Pengaruh tekanan yang diberikan Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat  kepada Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi akan amat kuat walaupun hak angket tersebut tidak dapat menyentuh kewenangan Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi dalam melakukan penyidikan, penyelidikan, dan penuntutan. Namun ada indikasi bahwa upaya angket pada dasarnya bukanlah upaya hukum melainkan upaya yang bersifat politis yang banyak dipraktekkan dalam negara penganut sistem parlementer yang cenderung dominan parlemen dibanding pihak eksekutif.Kesimpulan dari penelitian ini adalah (1).  Dalam putusan ini Hakim Konstitusi tidak  menggunakan penafsiran gramatikal dan sistematis yang lebih kuat dengan berlandaskan pada original intens. Selain ituPutusan Mahkamah Konstitusi ini adalah ambigu dan  berpotensi bertentangan dengan putusan sebelumnya yaitu putusan  Mahkamah Konstitusi  No.012-016-019/PUU-IV/2006.(2)  Adanya konsekuensi bagi Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi dimasa mendatang khususnya dalam hal independensi  akibatdari dapat dijadikannya objek hak angket oleh Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat
THE COMPARISON BETWEEN THE JUDICIAL COMMISSION OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA AND THE NETHERLANDS COUNCIL FOR THE JUDICIARY Suparto Suparto
UNIFIKASI : Jurnal Ilmu Hukum Vol 6, No 1 (2019)
Publisher : Universitas Kuningan

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25134/unifikasi.v6i1.1527

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to analyze the position and authority of the Judicial Commission of the Republic of Indonesia and its comparison to the Netherlands Council for the Judiciary. This comparative study applied a normative juridical method. The data used in this study were secondary data. The collected data were then analyzed qualitatively. The results showed that Judicial Commission has an important position in judicial system in Indonesia so as structurally, its position is aligned with the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. Yet, functionally, its role is auxiliary to the judicial power institutions. Although the function of the Judicial Commission is related to judicial power, but the Judicial Commission is not an agent of judicial power, rather, it is an agency enforcing code of ethics of judges. Besides, the Judicial Commission is also not involved in the organization, personnel, administration and financial matters of judges. This condition is different from the Judicial Commission in European countries, such as the Netherlands. The Judicial Commission in the Netherlands (The Netherlands Council for the Judiciary) has an authority in the area of technical policy and policy making in the field of justice. The Netherlands Council for the Judiciary and other Judicial Commission in European countries generally have the authority in managing organization, budget and administration as well as in conducting promotions, transfers, and recruitments as well as imposing sanctions on judges. Thus, the Supreme Court only focuses on carrying out judicial functions and does not deal with administrative and judicial organization matters. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui dan memahami tentang kedudukan dan kewenangan Komisi Yudisial Republik Indonesia serta perbandingannya dengan Komisi Yudisial Belanda. Metode penelitian yang digunakan yaitu yuridis normatif dengan cara perbandingan (komparatif). Data yang digunakan adalah data sekunder sedangkan analisis data dilakukan secara kualitatif. Hasil penelitian yaitu bahwa kedudukan Komisi Yudisial sangat penting, sehinggasecara struktural kedudukannya diposisikan sederajat dengan Mahkamah Agung dan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Namun demikian  secara fungsionalperannya bersifat penunjang (auxiliary) terhadap lembaga kekuasaan kehakiman. Komisi Yudisial meskipun fungsinya terkait dengan kekuasaan kehakiman tetapi bukan  pelaku kekuasaan kehakiman, melainkan lembaga penegak norma etik (code of ethics) dari hakim. Selain itu Komisi Yudisial juga tidak terlibat dalam hal organisasi, personalia, administrasi dan keuangan para hakim. Hal ini berbeda dengan Komisi Yudisial yang ada di negara Eropa misalnya Belanda. Komisi Yudisial di Belanda (Netherland Council for Judiciary) memiliki kewenangan pada area kebijakan teknis dan pembuatan kebijakan pada bidang peradilan.Komisi Yudisial Belanda dan di Eropa pada umumnya mempunyai kewenangan dalam hal mengelola organisasi, anggaran dan administrasi peradilan termasuk dalam melakukan promosi, mutasi, rekruitmen dan memberikan sanksi terhadap hakim. Mahkamah Agung hanya fokus melaksanakan fungsi peradilan yaitu mengadili
The Position and Function of the Regional Representative Council in Constitutional System of Indonesia According to the Regional Autonomy Laws: A Shift from Legislative to Regional Executive Suparto Suparto
UNIFIKASI : Jurnal Ilmu Hukum Vol 8, No 1 (2021)
Publisher : Universitas Kuningan

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25134/unifikasi.v8i1.3577

Abstract

This study aims to determine the position and function of the Regional Representative Council (DPRD) in the constitutional system of Indonesia. The study employed a normative legal approach and was analyzed qualitatively using secondary data. The finding revealed the position and function of the DPRD, an element of regional government administration, is currently regulated in one law, Law no. 23 of 2014 concerning Regional Government which previously regulated in the Law on the MPR, DPR, DPD, and DPRD. The DPRD has been regarded as a regional legislative council. In fact, a country adheres to the Unitary State concept do not familiar with regional legislatures. Even though, there is only one legislative council at the regional center, the DPR RI. In the previous law, Law no. 32/2004 states that DPRD has legislative, budgeting, and supervisory functions. The legislative function of the DPRD has resulted in ambiguity on the DPRD's position, a legislative council or part of the executive branch. This is because the function of legislative is to create laws owned by the legislative council. In this case, the DPR. Meanwhile, the DPRD only has the authority to formulate Perda. Based on Law no. 23 of 2014, the DPRD no longer has a legislative function. It is replaced by the function of forming a regional regulation. The DPRD which has been regarded as a regional legislative council, has begun to shift towards the regional executive
Co-Authors A Admiral Admiral Admiral Ardiansyah Ardiansyah Chatarina Umbul Wahyuni Dedy Gusniawan Deni Jaya Saputra Despan Heryansyah Efendi Ibnu Susilo Ellydar Chaidir Halimah Abdul Manaf Heni Pujiastuti Monika Melina Muhammad Faizal Pahlevi Naurah Dwirengganis Riata Putri Puti Mayang Seruni Riauan, Muhd Ar. Imam Santos, Jose Gama Susilo, Efendi Ibnu Umi Muslikhah Zainal