Pan Mohamad Faiz
Judicial Assistant To The Chief Justice Of Indonesian Constitutional Court

Published : 24 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 24 Documents
Search

Perlindungan terhadap Lingkungan dalam Perspektif Konstitusi Pan Mohamad Faiz
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol 13, No 4 (2016)
Publisher : The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (366.079 KB) | DOI: 10.31078/jk1344

Abstract

Nowadays there is a tendency in many countries to protect the environment by incorporating general principles of environment into a state or a regional constitution. This article aims to examine the extent to which environmental protection can be provided through the adoption of those constitutional norms. This study was conducted using a qualitative methodology with a normative approach and library research derived from court decisions, law and regulations, books and journal articles. It concludes that the Indonesian Constitution contains constitutional norms for the environmental protection. However, these constitutional norms are still positioned as a subsidiary or supporting factor in the fulfillment of human rights and the national economy. In order to strengthen the environmental protection by the Indonesian Constitution, it requires a reformulation of related constitutional norms by positioning the environment more as the basic values in the state administration and national economic activities.
Memperkuat Prinsip Pemilu yang Teratur, Bebas, dan Adil Melalui Pengujian Konstitusionalitas Undang-Undang Pan Mohamad Faiz
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol 14, No 3 (2017)
Publisher : The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (676.643 KB) | DOI: 10.31078/jk14310

Abstract

Artikel ini membahas peran Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam memperkuat prinsip-prinsip demokrasi di Indonesia, khususnya prinsip Pemilu yang teratur, bebas, dan adil (regular, free and fair elections). Analisis dilakukan terhadap putusan-putusan monumental (landmark decisions) dalam pengujian konstitusionalitas undang-undang yang dikeluarkan oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi terkait dengan penyelenggaraan Pemilu. Penelitian ini didasarkan pada metodologi kualitatif dengan menggunakan studi kepustakaan yang bersumber dari putusan-putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi, peraturan perundang-undangan, buku, dan artikel jurnal ilmiah. Artikel ini menyimpulkan bahwa Mahkamah Konstitusi telah turut membentuk politik hukum terkait dengan sistem Pemilu di Indonesia dan berbagai aturan pelaksanaannya. Selain itu, Mahkamah Konstitusi juga telah memperkuat prinsip Pemilu yang teratur, bebas, dan adil dengan cara melindungi hak pilih warga negara, menjamin persamaan hak warga negara untuk dipilih, menentukan persamaan syarat partai politik sebagai peserta Pemilu, menyelamatkan suara pemilih, menyempurnakan prosedur pemilihan dalam Pemilu, dan menjaga independensi penyelenggara Pemilu.This article discusses the Constitutional Court’s role in strengthening the principles of democracy in Indonesia, particularly the principle of regular, free, and fair elections. An analysis was conducted towards landmark decisions declared by the Constitutional Court regarding general elections. This research is based on qualitative research by undertaking library-based research using the Court’s decisions, legislations, books and journal articles. It concludes that the Constitutional Court has established legal policies concerning electoral system in Indonesia and other related implementing regulations. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court has also strengthened the principle of regular, free and fair elections by protecting citizens’ right to vote, guaranteeing equal right of citizens to be elected, determining the same requirements for political party participating in the elections, saving citizen’s votes, improving electoral procedures and maintaining the independence of election organisers.
Respons Konstitusional Larangan Calon Anggota Dewan Perwakilan Daerah sebagai Pengurus Partai Politik Pan Mohamad Faiz; Muhammad Reza Winata
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol 16, No 3 (2019)
Publisher : The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (546.199 KB) | DOI: 10.31078/jk1635

Abstract

Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK) Nomor 30/PUU-XVI/2018 bertanggal 23 Juli 2018 menjadi salah satu putusan penting bagi desain lembaga perwakilan di Indonesia. Dalam Putusan tersebut, MK menyatakan bahwa pengurus partai politik dilarang menjadi calon anggota Dewan Perwakilan Daerah. Namun, tindak lanjut dari Putusan ini memicu polemik ketatanegaraan. Sebab, terjadi kontradiksi mengenai waktu pemberlakuan larangan tersebut akibat adanya perbedaan pemaknaan terhadap Putusan MK di dalam Putusan MA, PTUN, dan Bawaslu. MK menyatakan bahwa Putusannya berlaku sejak Pemilu 2019. Akan tetapi, Putusan MA, PTUN, dan Bawaslu tersebut menyatakan larangan tersebut berlaku setelah Pemilu 2019. Artikel ini mengkaji kontradiksi Putusan-Putusan tersebut dengan menggunakan tiga pisau analisis, yaitu: (1) finalitas putusan; (2) respons terhadap putusan; dan (3) validitas atau keberlakuan norma. Dengan menggunakan doktrin responsivitas terhadap putusan pengadilan dari Tom Ginsburg, artikel ini menyimpulkan bahwa Keputusan KPU yang tetap kukuh memberlakukan larangan bagi pengurus partai politik sebagai calon anggota DPD sejak Pemilu tahun 2019 sesungguhnya merupakan tindakan formal konstitusional karena telah mengikuti (comply) penafsiran konstitusional yang terkandung dalam Putusan MK. Di lain sisi, tindakan KPU juga merupakan bentuk yang sekaligus mengesampingkan (overrule) Putusan MA, PTUN, dan Bawaslu. Meskipun demikian, respons KPU tersebut dapat dibenarkan karena Putusan MK memiliki objek dan dasar pengujian lebih tinggi dalam hierarki peraturan perundang-undangan, sehingga memiliki validitas hukum lebih tinggi dari Putusan MA, PTUN, dan Bawaslu. Dengan demikian, tindakan KPU yang konsisten mengikuti Putusan MK tersebut merupakan respons konstitusional yang memiliki justifikasi hukum dan konstitusi, sebagaimana juga dikuatkan oleh Dewan Kehormatan Penyelenggara Pemilu (DKPP), baik secara hukum maupun etik.The Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 30/PUU-XVI/2018 on 23 July 2018 is one of the important decisions concerning the constitutional design of parliament in Indonesia. The Constitutional Court decided that political party officials and functionaries are banned from running as the Regional Representative Council candidates. Nonetheless, the implementation of the decision has triggered a political polemic because there is a contradiction concerning the timing of the prohibition due to different interpretations towards the Constitutional Court Decision in the Supreme Court Decision Number 64/P/HUM/2018, the Administrative Court Decision Number 242/G/SPPU/2018/PTUN-JKT and the Election Supervisory Body Decision Number 008/LP/PL/ADM/RI/00/XII/2018. The Constitutional Court explicitly stated that its decision must be implemented since the 2019 General Election. However, the Supreme Court Decision, the Administrative Court Decision, and the Election Supervisory Body Decision decided that the prohibition shall be applied after the 2019 General Election. This article examines the contradictions between those decisions using three different approaches, namely: (1) finality of decision; (2) response to decision; and (3) validity or the applicability of norms. Based on the responsivity doctrine to the court decisions introduced by Tom Ginsburg, this article concludes that the General Election Commission decision that strongly holds its standing to ban political party officials and functionaries from running as the Regional Representative Council candidates since the 2019 General Election is a formally constitutional decision because it has complied with the constitutional interpretation contained in the Constitutional Court Decision. On the other hand, the General Election Commission decision has also overruled the Supreme Court Decision, the Administrative Court Decision, and the Election Supervisory Body Decision. Nevertheless, the General Election Commission’s response is appropriate because the Constitutional Court Decision has an object and a constitutional ground of judicial review that are higher in the hierarchy of laws and regulations in Indonesia. Therefore, the validity and the legal effect of the Constitutional Court Decision are also higher compared to the Supreme Court Decision, the Administrative Court Decision, or the Election Supervisory Body Decision. Thus, the General Election Commission decision that consistently complied with the Constitutional Court decision is a constitutional response that can be justified.
Analisis Perbandingan Peran Kamar Kedua Parlemen dan Kekuasaan Kehakiman dalam Proses Pemberhentian Presiden Pan Mohamad Faiz; Muhammad Erfa Redhani
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol 15, No 2 (2018)
Publisher : The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (555.987 KB) | DOI: 10.31078/jk1521

Abstract

Proses pemakzulan atau pemberhentian Presiden menurut UUD 1945 melibatkan secara aktif tiga lembaga negara berbeda, yaitu DPR, Mahkamah Konstitusi, dan MPR. Proses akhir dari pemberhentian Presiden bukanlah di tangan Mahkamah Konstitusi, namun terletak pada sidang istimewa MPR yang terdiri dari anggota DPR dan anggota DPD. Dengan demikian, anggota MPR yang berasal dari anggota DPD sebenarnya memiliki peran terbatas secara perorangan untuk turut serta menentukan pemberhentian Presiden karena tidak melibatkan DPD secara kelembagaan sebagai kamar kedua parlemen (second chamber). Oleh karenanya, penelitian ini bertujuan untuk memberikan analisis perbandingan mengenai sejauh mana peran kamar kedua parlemen dan kekuasaan kehakiman dalam proses pemberhentian Presiden di lima belas negara berbeda, baik terhadap negara yang menggunakan sistem pemerintahan presidensial, sistem parlementer, ataupun sistem campuran. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode kualitatif melalui pendekatan perbandingan konstitusi dengan bersumber pada studi kepustakaan. Berdasarkan analisis perbandingan yang dilakukan maka diperoleh kesimpulan bahwa kamar kedua parlemen di banyak negara memiliki peran sangat penting dalam menentukan pemberhentian Presiden. Kemudian, sebagian besar negara yang diteliti juga turut melibatkan kekuasaan kehakimannya melalui Mahkamah Konstitusi, Mahkamah Agung, atau Dewan Konstitusi. Lembaga ini menilai usulan atau dakwaan dari parlemen mengenai bersalah atau tidaknya Presiden atas dugaan pelanggaran konstitusi atau kejahatan pidana lainnya. Meskipun demikian, negara-negara tersebut umumnya tetap menyerahkan keputusan akhir mengenai pemberhentian Presiden kepada parlemen.The impeachment process against the President according to the 1945 Constitution of Indonesia actively involves three different state institutions, namely the House of Representative (DPR), the Constitutional Court (MK), and the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR). The final process of the impeachment in Indonesia is not in the hand of the Constitutional Court, but it lies in a Special Session of the MPR consisting of members of the DPR and members of the Regional Representative Council (DPD). Thus, the individual role of the MPR members who come from the DPD members to participate in determining the impeachment of the President is limited because it does not involve the DPD institutionally as the second chamber of parliament. Therefore, this research aims to provide a comparative analysis concerning the roles of the second chamber of parliament and judicial power in the impeachment process against the President in fifteen countries that implement three different systems of government, which are the presidential system, the parliamentary system, and the semi-presidential system. This research used a qualitative method and a comparative constitutional approach based on a literature study. It concluded that the second chamber of parliament in various countries has very important roles in deciding the impeachment process of the President. Moreover, the judicial powers through the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court or the Constitutional Council also involved in deciding whether the President is guilty of the alleged violations against the constitution or common criminal offenses. Nevertheless, in most of the countries studied, the final decision on the impeachment process based on the Court’s decision is still given to the parliament.
Hukum yang Hidup dalam Masyarakat dalam Pembaharuan Hukum Pidana Nasional Pan Mohamad Faiz; Muhammad Erfa Redhani
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol 17, No 1 (2020)
Publisher : The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (367.609 KB) | DOI: 10.31078/jk1717

Abstract

The question about the existence of the living law in the criminal law reform can at least be done both in juridical and theoretical perspectives. This paper attempts to discuss and present two important perspectives on the living law in the criminal law reform. First, how the position of the living law in the criminal law reform is seen from the perspective of legal theory. Secondly, how far of the living law is gaining justification for contributing to the criminal law reform. Both problems are studied in doctrinal and produce findings as follows: first, the contribution of the living law in the criminal law reform is gaining theoretical strengthening. Secondly, the contributions of the living law in the criminal law reform also obtained not only by national legal instruments, but also by international legal instruments.
Dimensi Judicial Activism dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Pan Mohamad Faiz
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol 13, No 2 (2016)
Publisher : The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (474.361 KB) | DOI: 10.31078/jk1328

Abstract

A transformative amendment of the 1945 Constitution established a separate judicial institution called the Constitutional Court. This institution is believed to serve a strategic role within Indonesia’s plural legal  system  particularly  in  the area of constitutional review and constitutional rights protection. However, the performance of the Constitutional Court has attracted controversy. This controversy arises because the Court is concerned with introducing a sociological paradigm of law that embraces substantive justice with a fluid acknowledgment of procedural justice. A key criticism of the Constitutional Court is that the nature of Court decisions has developed into a practice of judicial activism. This article discusses the dimension of judicial activism used by the Constitutional Court on the grounds for protecting constitutional rights of the citizens through its decisions. It also analyses the extent of judicial activism that can be justified in the decision-making process   in the Constitutonal  Court.
Perlindungan terhadap Lingkungan dalam Perspektif Konstitusi Pan Mohamad Faiz
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol 13, No 4 (2016)
Publisher : The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (366.079 KB) | DOI: 10.31078/jk1344

Abstract

Nowadays there is a tendency in many countries to protect the environment by incorporating general principles of environment into a state or a regional constitution. This article aims to examine the extent to which environmental protection can be provided through the adoption of those constitutional norms. This study was conducted using a qualitative methodology with a normative approach and library research derived from court decisions, law and regulations, books and journal articles. It concludes that the Indonesian Constitution contains constitutional norms for the environmental protection. However, these constitutional norms are still positioned as a subsidiary or supporting factor in the fulfillment of human rights and the national economy. In order to strengthen the environmental protection by the Indonesian Constitution, it requires a reformulation of related constitutional norms by positioning the environment more as the basic values in the state administration and national economic activities.
Memperkuat Prinsip Pemilu yang Teratur, Bebas, dan Adil Melalui Pengujian Konstitusionalitas Undang-Undang Pan Mohamad Faiz
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol 14, No 3 (2017)
Publisher : The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (676.643 KB) | DOI: 10.31078/jk14310

Abstract

Artikel ini membahas peran Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam memperkuat prinsip-prinsip demokrasi di Indonesia, khususnya prinsip Pemilu yang teratur, bebas, dan adil (regular, free and fair elections). Analisis dilakukan terhadap putusan-putusan monumental (landmark decisions) dalam pengujian konstitusionalitas undang-undang yang dikeluarkan oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi terkait dengan penyelenggaraan Pemilu. Penelitian ini didasarkan pada metodologi kualitatif dengan menggunakan studi kepustakaan yang bersumber dari putusan-putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi, peraturan perundang-undangan, buku, dan artikel jurnal ilmiah. Artikel ini menyimpulkan bahwa Mahkamah Konstitusi telah turut membentuk politik hukum terkait dengan sistem Pemilu di Indonesia dan berbagai aturan pelaksanaannya. Selain itu, Mahkamah Konstitusi juga telah memperkuat prinsip Pemilu yang teratur, bebas, dan adil dengan cara melindungi hak pilih warga negara, menjamin persamaan hak warga negara untuk dipilih, menentukan persamaan syarat partai politik sebagai peserta Pemilu, menyelamatkan suara pemilih, menyempurnakan prosedur pemilihan dalam Pemilu, dan menjaga independensi penyelenggara Pemilu.This article discusses the Constitutional Court’s role in strengthening the principles of democracy in Indonesia, particularly the principle of regular, free, and fair elections. An analysis was conducted towards landmark decisions declared by the Constitutional Court regarding general elections. This research is based on qualitative research by undertaking library-based research using the Court’s decisions, legislations, books and journal articles. It concludes that the Constitutional Court has established legal policies concerning electoral system in Indonesia and other related implementing regulations. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court has also strengthened the principle of regular, free and fair elections by protecting citizens’ right to vote, guaranteeing equal right of citizens to be elected, determining the same requirements for political party participating in the elections, saving citizen’s votes, improving electoral procedures and maintaining the independence of election organisers.
Respons Konstitusional Larangan Calon Anggota Dewan Perwakilan Daerah sebagai Pengurus Partai Politik Pan Mohamad Faiz; Muhammad Reza Winata
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol 16, No 3 (2019)
Publisher : The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (546.199 KB) | DOI: 10.31078/jk1635

Abstract

Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK) Nomor 30/PUU-XVI/2018 bertanggal 23 Juli 2018 menjadi salah satu putusan penting bagi desain lembaga perwakilan di Indonesia. Dalam Putusan tersebut, MK menyatakan bahwa pengurus partai politik dilarang menjadi calon anggota Dewan Perwakilan Daerah. Namun, tindak lanjut dari Putusan ini memicu polemik ketatanegaraan. Sebab, terjadi kontradiksi mengenai waktu pemberlakuan larangan tersebut akibat adanya perbedaan pemaknaan terhadap Putusan MK di dalam Putusan MA, PTUN, dan Bawaslu. MK menyatakan bahwa Putusannya berlaku sejak Pemilu 2019. Akan tetapi, Putusan MA, PTUN, dan Bawaslu tersebut menyatakan larangan tersebut berlaku setelah Pemilu 2019. Artikel ini mengkaji kontradiksi Putusan-Putusan tersebut dengan menggunakan tiga pisau analisis, yaitu: (1) finalitas putusan; (2) respons terhadap putusan; dan (3) validitas atau keberlakuan norma. Dengan menggunakan doktrin responsivitas terhadap putusan pengadilan dari Tom Ginsburg, artikel ini menyimpulkan bahwa Keputusan KPU yang tetap kukuh memberlakukan larangan bagi pengurus partai politik sebagai calon anggota DPD sejak Pemilu tahun 2019 sesungguhnya merupakan tindakan formal konstitusional karena telah mengikuti (comply) penafsiran konstitusional yang terkandung dalam Putusan MK. Di lain sisi, tindakan KPU juga merupakan bentuk yang sekaligus mengesampingkan (overrule) Putusan MA, PTUN, dan Bawaslu. Meskipun demikian, respons KPU tersebut dapat dibenarkan karena Putusan MK memiliki objek dan dasar pengujian lebih tinggi dalam hierarki peraturan perundang-undangan, sehingga memiliki validitas hukum lebih tinggi dari Putusan MA, PTUN, dan Bawaslu. Dengan demikian, tindakan KPU yang konsisten mengikuti Putusan MK tersebut merupakan respons konstitusional yang memiliki justifikasi hukum dan konstitusi, sebagaimana juga dikuatkan oleh Dewan Kehormatan Penyelenggara Pemilu (DKPP), baik secara hukum maupun etik.The Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 30/PUU-XVI/2018 on 23 July 2018 is one of the important decisions concerning the constitutional design of parliament in Indonesia. The Constitutional Court decided that political party officials and functionaries are banned from running as the Regional Representative Council candidates. Nonetheless, the implementation of the decision has triggered a political polemic because there is a contradiction concerning the timing of the prohibition due to different interpretations towards the Constitutional Court Decision in the Supreme Court Decision Number 64/P/HUM/2018, the Administrative Court Decision Number 242/G/SPPU/2018/PTUN-JKT and the Election Supervisory Body Decision Number 008/LP/PL/ADM/RI/00/XII/2018. The Constitutional Court explicitly stated that its decision must be implemented since the 2019 General Election. However, the Supreme Court Decision, the Administrative Court Decision, and the Election Supervisory Body Decision decided that the prohibition shall be applied after the 2019 General Election. This article examines the contradictions between those decisions using three different approaches, namely: (1) finality of decision; (2) response to decision; and (3) validity or the applicability of norms. Based on the responsivity doctrine to the court decisions introduced by Tom Ginsburg, this article concludes that the General Election Commission decision that strongly holds its standing to ban political party officials and functionaries from running as the Regional Representative Council candidates since the 2019 General Election is a formally constitutional decision because it has complied with the constitutional interpretation contained in the Constitutional Court Decision. On the other hand, the General Election Commission decision has also overruled the Supreme Court Decision, the Administrative Court Decision, and the Election Supervisory Body Decision. Nevertheless, the General Election Commission’s response is appropriate because the Constitutional Court Decision has an object and a constitutional ground of judicial review that are higher in the hierarchy of laws and regulations in Indonesia. Therefore, the validity and the legal effect of the Constitutional Court Decision are also higher compared to the Supreme Court Decision, the Administrative Court Decision, or the Election Supervisory Body Decision. Thus, the General Election Commission decision that consistently complied with the Constitutional Court decision is a constitutional response that can be justified.
Analisis Perbandingan Peran Kamar Kedua Parlemen dan Kekuasaan Kehakiman dalam Proses Pemberhentian Presiden Pan Mohamad Faiz; Muhammad Erfa Redhani
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol 15, No 2 (2018)
Publisher : The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (555.987 KB) | DOI: 10.31078/jk1521

Abstract

Proses pemakzulan atau pemberhentian Presiden menurut UUD 1945 melibatkan secara aktif tiga lembaga negara berbeda, yaitu DPR, Mahkamah Konstitusi, dan MPR. Proses akhir dari pemberhentian Presiden bukanlah di tangan Mahkamah Konstitusi, namun terletak pada sidang istimewa MPR yang terdiri dari anggota DPR dan anggota DPD. Dengan demikian, anggota MPR yang berasal dari anggota DPD sebenarnya memiliki peran terbatas secara perorangan untuk turut serta menentukan pemberhentian Presiden karena tidak melibatkan DPD secara kelembagaan sebagai kamar kedua parlemen (second chamber). Oleh karenanya, penelitian ini bertujuan untuk memberikan analisis perbandingan mengenai sejauh mana peran kamar kedua parlemen dan kekuasaan kehakiman dalam proses pemberhentian Presiden di lima belas negara berbeda, baik terhadap negara yang menggunakan sistem pemerintahan presidensial, sistem parlementer, ataupun sistem campuran. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode kualitatif melalui pendekatan perbandingan konstitusi dengan bersumber pada studi kepustakaan. Berdasarkan analisis perbandingan yang dilakukan maka diperoleh kesimpulan bahwa kamar kedua parlemen di banyak negara memiliki peran sangat penting dalam menentukan pemberhentian Presiden. Kemudian, sebagian besar negara yang diteliti juga turut melibatkan kekuasaan kehakimannya melalui Mahkamah Konstitusi, Mahkamah Agung, atau Dewan Konstitusi. Lembaga ini menilai usulan atau dakwaan dari parlemen mengenai bersalah atau tidaknya Presiden atas dugaan pelanggaran konstitusi atau kejahatan pidana lainnya. Meskipun demikian, negara-negara tersebut umumnya tetap menyerahkan keputusan akhir mengenai pemberhentian Presiden kepada parlemen.The impeachment process against the President according to the 1945 Constitution of Indonesia actively involves three different state institutions, namely the House of Representative (DPR), the Constitutional Court (MK), and the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR). The final process of the impeachment in Indonesia is not in the hand of the Constitutional Court, but it lies in a Special Session of the MPR consisting of members of the DPR and members of the Regional Representative Council (DPD). Thus, the individual role of the MPR members who come from the DPD members to participate in determining the impeachment of the President is limited because it does not involve the DPD institutionally as the second chamber of parliament. Therefore, this research aims to provide a comparative analysis concerning the roles of the second chamber of parliament and judicial power in the impeachment process against the President in fifteen countries that implement three different systems of government, which are the presidential system, the parliamentary system, and the semi-presidential system. This research used a qualitative method and a comparative constitutional approach based on a literature study. It concluded that the second chamber of parliament in various countries has very important roles in deciding the impeachment process of the President. Moreover, the judicial powers through the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court or the Constitutional Council also involved in deciding whether the President is guilty of the alleged violations against the constitution or common criminal offenses. Nevertheless, in most of the countries studied, the final decision on the impeachment process based on the Court’s decision is still given to the parliament.