Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
2.63
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Masalah-Masalah Hukum Veritas et Justitia Jurnal Hukum IUS QUIA IUSTUM PADJADJARAN Jurnal Ilmu Hukum (Journal of Law) Jurnal Konstitusi Mimbar Hukum - Fakultas Hukum Universitas Gadjah Mada Constitutional Review Undang: Jurnal Hukum Jurnal Konstitusi Refleksi Hukum: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum Yuridika Mimbar Hukum Jurnal Hukum dan Pembangunan
Titon Slamet Kurnia
Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana
Humanities Education Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences Other

Published : 30 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 4 Documents
Search
Journal : Veritas et Justitia

 1 
PRESIDEN DAN PEMBERHENTIAN HAKIM KONSTITUSI: PEMISAHAN KEKUASAAN TANPA CHECKS AND BALANCES Kurnia, Titon Slamet
Veritas et Justitia Vol. 10 No. 1 (2024): Veritas et Justitia
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Parahyangan Catholic University

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25123/vej.v10i1.7735

Abstract

On September 29, 2022, the People’s Representative Council (DPR) controversially removed Justice Aswanto and proposed Guntur Hamzah as his successor. Following the DPR’s decision, the President issued Presidential Decision Number 114/P of 2022. This process aligns with Article 24C paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, which states: “The Constitutional Court is comprised of nine Justices who are appointed by the President, of whom three are proposed by the Supreme Court, three by the People’s Representative Council, and three by the President.” This provision includes two clauses: the proposal clause and the appointment clause. This article discusses the President's role in implementing the appointment clause in the case of Justice Aswanto’s removal. Using a conceptual approach, it focuses on interpreting Article 24C paragraph (3) to understand that the President's role in the appointment clause embodies the principle of checks and balances. This article argues against the President’s legalistic position of implementing the appointment clause without scrutinizing the DPR’s decision. While the appointment clause does not explicitly authorize the President to refuse issuing the Presidential Decision, this norm may be inferred from our commitment to the supremacy of the constitution.
INTERVENSI YUDISIAL DALAM ISU HUBUNGAN PUSAT–DAERAH: STUDI TERHADAP PRAKTIK MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI Kurnia, Titon Slamet
Veritas et Justitia Vol. 7 No. 1 (2021): Veritas et Justitia
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Parahyangan Catholic University

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25123/vej.v7i1.4081

Abstract

The legal issue to be discussed in this article is the involvement of the Constitutional Court in adjudicating issues concerning the relationship between national – local government in general, and the distribution of power to the local government in particular. To be more specific, this article will criticise by delivering a casenote over the Constitutional Court decisions, i.e. Decision Number 87/PUU-XIII/2015, Decision Number 137/PUU-XIII/2015, Decision Number 30/PUU-XIV/2016 and Decision Number 56/PUU-XIV/2016. The casenote will notify the need to a deeper conceptual understanding of the differences between unitary State and federalism principles and its implication in giving prescriptions. This is a response to the Constitutional Court’s judicial opinion which tends weightier to federalism, instead of unitary State principle. According to this situation, it is recommended that the Constitutional Court should not review the constitutionality of laws which contain the legal issues concerning the relationship between national – local government in general, and the distribution of power to the local government in particular. This article uses conceptual and comparative approaches.
INTERVENSI YUDISIAL DALAM ISU HUBUNGAN PUSAT–DAERAH: STUDI TERHADAP PRAKTIK MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI Kurnia, Titon Slamet
Veritas et Justitia Vol. 7 No. 1 (2021): Veritas et Justitia
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Parahyangan Catholic University

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25123/vej.v7i1.4081

Abstract

The legal issue to be discussed in this article is the involvement of the Constitutional Court in adjudicating issues concerning the relationship between national – local government in general, and the distribution of power to the local government in particular. To be more specific, this article will criticise by delivering a casenote over the Constitutional Court decisions, i.e. Decision Number 87/PUU-XIII/2015, Decision Number 137/PUU-XIII/2015, Decision Number 30/PUU-XIV/2016 and Decision Number 56/PUU-XIV/2016. The casenote will notify the need to a deeper conceptual understanding of the differences between unitary State and federalism principles and its implication in giving prescriptions. This is a response to the Constitutional Court’s judicial opinion which tends weightier to federalism, instead of unitary State principle. According to this situation, it is recommended that the Constitutional Court should not review the constitutionality of laws which contain the legal issues concerning the relationship between national – local government in general, and the distribution of power to the local government in particular. This article uses conceptual and comparative approaches.
PRESIDEN DAN PEMBERHENTIAN HAKIM KONSTITUSI: PEMISAHAN KEKUASAAN TANPA CHECKS AND BALANCES Kurnia, Titon Slamet
Veritas et Justitia Vol. 10 No. 1 (2024): Veritas et Justitia
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Parahyangan Catholic University

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25123/vej.v10i1.7735

Abstract

On September 29, 2022, the People’s Representative Council (DPR) controversially removed Justice Aswanto and proposed Guntur Hamzah as his successor. Following the DPR’s decision, the President issued Presidential Decision Number 114/P of 2022. This process aligns with Article 24C paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, which states: “The Constitutional Court is comprised of nine Justices who are appointed by the President, of whom three are proposed by the Supreme Court, three by the People’s Representative Council, and three by the President.” This provision includes two clauses: the proposal clause and the appointment clause. This article discusses the President's role in implementing the appointment clause in the case of Justice Aswanto’s removal. Using a conceptual approach, it focuses on interpreting Article 24C paragraph (3) to understand that the President's role in the appointment clause embodies the principle of checks and balances. This article argues against the President’s legalistic position of implementing the appointment clause without scrutinizing the DPR’s decision. While the appointment clause does not explicitly authorize the President to refuse issuing the Presidential Decision, this norm may be inferred from our commitment to the supremacy of the constitution.
Co-Authors Abd. Rasyid Syamsuri Ari Siswanto Krishna Djaya Darumurti Moonik, Prisilia Kornelia Ninon Melatyugra Umbu Rauta