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 30 Documents
Search

 1   2   3 
SEBUAH KERANGKA TEORETIS HUBUNGAN INSTITUSIONAL BERBASIS KONSTITUSIONALISME Kurnia, Titon Slamet
Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan Vol. 50, No. 2
Publisher : UI Scholars Hub

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

Abstract

This article discusses legal issue pertaining to institutional relationship between the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court in case of constitutional interpretation, particularly the bindingness of the Constitutional Court’s opinion over the Supreme Court. Responding the issue, this article conveys departmentalist view, and rejects judicial supremacist view within the Constitutional Court in prescribing the constitutional interpretation authority. In line with departmentalism, this article argues that the Supreme Court should be given authority in constitutional interpretation, concurrent with the Constitutional Court. It is further argued that constitutional interpretation should be viewed as constitutional discourse in which the Supreme Court should be allowed to participate within its ratione materiae jurisdiction.
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.
Otonomi Daerah dan Demokrasi: Kritik terhadap Pendapat Mujani dan Liddle tentang Mandat Populis Kepala Daerah Kurnia, Titon Slamet
Undang: Jurnal Hukum Vol. 6 No. 2 (2023)
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Jambi

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.22437/ujh.6.2.415-445

Abstract

This article discusses issue concerning local autonomy and democracy. Utilizing systematic interpretation, this article reconstructs the meaning of local autonomy in light of unitary State and presidentialism principles. The specific target is to criticize the opinion of Saiful Mujani and William Liddle, prominent political scientist on Indonesia, which states that local officials should have popular mandates. The opinion is to criticize the role of central government in replacing governors, district heads, and mayors whose terms end in 2022 or 2023 with temporary officials adjusted with the schedule of simultaneous general elections in 2024. According to Mujani and Liddle, this situation is undemocratic. This article opines that Mujani and Liddle’s claim is incorrect. Based on unitary State and presidentialism, this situation is not contrary to the principle of democracy because head of local governments is executive, whereas the president itself is chief executive. Under the dictate of presidentialism principle, head of local governments should not have popular mandates even the Constitution states otherwise. Therefore, local autonomy should not mean that head of local governments should be democratically elected. Abstrak Artikel ini hendak mendiskusikan isu tentang otonomi daerah dan demokrasi. Dengan menggunakan teknik interpretasi sistematis, artikel ini merekonstruksi makna otonomi daerah sesuai dengan asas negara kesatuan dan presidensialisme. Target spesifik artikel ini adalah untuk mengkritik pendapat Saiful Mujani dan William Liddle, ilmuwan politik terkemuka tentang Indonesia, yang menyatakan bahwa kepala daerah harus memiliki mandat populis. Pendapat tersebut ditujukan untuk mengkritik peran pemerintah pusat yang mengganti kepala daerah yang berakhir masa jabatannya pada tahun 2022 dan 2023 dengan Penjabat Kepala Daerah dalam rangka penyesuaian jadwal pelaksanaan Pemilu Serentak 2024. Mujani dan Liddle menyatakan bahwa hal ini tidak demokratis. Artikel ini berpendapat bahwa klaim Mujani dan Liddle tidak tepat. Berdasarkan asas negara kesatuan dan presidensialisme, situasi demikian tidak bertentangan dengan demokrasi karena kepala daerah adalah eksekutif, sedangkan presiden sendiri adalah kepala eksekutif. Berdasarkan asas presidensialisme, kepala daerah seharusnya tidak memerlukan mandat demokratis meskipun ketentuan Konstitusi menyatakan sebaliknya. Dengan demikian, otonomi daerah tidak seyogianya bermakna kepala daerah harus dipilih secara demokratis.
RECALL ASWANTO: TERTUTUPNYA RUANG DISAGREEMENT ANTARA PEMBENTUK UNDANG-UNDANG DAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI Kurnia, Titon Slamet
Refleksi Hukum: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum Vol. 7 No. 2 (2023): Refleksi Hukum: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum
Publisher : Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.24246/jrh.2023.v7.i2.p143-162

Abstract

This article discusses the recall directed to Justice Aswanto of the Constitutional Court during his tenure by the House of Representatives (DPR). The DPR recalls Justice Aswanto due to its disagreement with his judicial performance. According to the law, the Constitutional Court Justices may only be removed from office during his/her tenure through the Ethical Council of the Constitutional Court. This article argues that the recall is inconsistent with the principle of security of tenure and, therefore, contradicts the principle of judicial independence. Unfortunately, this issue is not the main problem. The primary issue is that the legislature has no room to disagree with the Constitutional Court's interpretation in reviewing the constitutionality of legislation. This issue arises because the Constitution, UUD 1945, allocates the finality of the constitutional review mechanism in the judiciary. In solving the issue, this article refers to the Canadian model of constitutional review. The concept of the Canadian model is a judicial review with legislative finality.
Universality of Rights as an Interpretive Principle for the Indonesian Constitutional Court Titon Slamet Kurnia; Ninon Melatyugra
Constitutional Review Vol. 10 No. 2 (2024)
Publisher : The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31078/consrev1027

Abstract

This article discusses issues regarding constitutional interpretation in general, and the interpretation of human rights provisions in the constitution in particular. The setting of the discussion is the role of the Constitutional Court of Indonesia in reviewing the constitutionality of laws based on Chapter XA of the 1945 Constitution. Constitutional interpretation is pivotal in deciding the constitutionality of laws. Therefore, this article aims to propose an interpretive principle to the Constitutional Court when interpreting human rights provisions in deciding the constitutionality of laws. The interpretive principle is the universality of rights. In other words, this article suggests the Constitutional Court adopt the universality of rights principle in interpreting Chapter XA of the 1945 Constitution. The principle of universality of rights departs from the understanding that human rights are natural rights. The interpretive principles that can be derived from the principle of universality of rights are as follows. First, recognition of unenumerated rights. Second, minimalization of the exercise of human rights limitation norms. Third, prioritization of protection of minorities. Fourth, encouraging the use of comparative approach in interpreting constitutional human rights norms. These interpretive principles are discovered through a comparative approach, in this case referring to judicial practices in other countries as well as regional and international judicial bodies that are considered relevant. The rationale behind this proposal is that human rights interpretation using the universality of rights principle can enhance the protection of human rights. Suppose judicial review of the constitutionality of laws is dedicated to enhancing human rights. In that case, constitutional interpretation should be dictated by the universality of rights principle as the interpretive principle.
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 PRESIDENSIALISME: TEORI KEKUASAAN EKSEKUTIF Kurnia, Titon Slamet
Refleksi Hukum: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum Vol. 9 No. 1 (2024): Refleksi Hukum: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum
Publisher : Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.24246/jrh.2024.v9.i1.p65-84

Abstract

This article presents a comparative constitutional law study of the President's executive power. The article confidently interprets the President's executive power based on the 1945 Constitution. It does so by referring to the unitary executive theory developed in the United States by unitarians based on the Constitution of the United States. Unitary executive means that the President, as Chief Executive, holds all executive power. The study's central point is presidentialism, a system of government shared by the United States and Indonesia. This article has two purposes. First, it corrects the foundational flaw of the unitary executive theory developed by unitarians because they do not specifically claim presidentialism as the underlying principle of their theory. Second, it makes the unitary executive theory applicable to Indonesia.
Indonesian Constitutional Court’s Moral Legitimacy: A Dworkinian Rights-Based Defense Kurnia, Titon Slamet; Darumurti, Krishna D.; Moonik, Prisilia Kornelia
PADJADJARAN JURNAL ILMU HUKUM (JOURNAL OF LAW) Vol 12, No 1 (2025): PADJADJARAN JURNAL ILMU HUKUM (JOURNAL OF LAW)
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Padjadjaran

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

Abstract

This study discusses the moral legitimacy of constitutional adjudication in general, with a particular focus on the Indonesian Constitutional Court. Moral legitimacy is crucial as it justifies the necessity of Constitutional Court—not merely because of its existence is stipulated by the 1945 Constitution. This issue is also discussed in response to the legislature’s (the People’s Representative Council) adverse reactions to the Constitutional Court, including efforts to weaken its authority. Additionally, moral legitimacy is also related to the well-known critique of constitutional adjudication: the counter-majoritarian difficulty. This study draws on Ronald Dworkin Rights-Based Theory, which defends constitutional adjudication as a means of safeguarding individual rights. Accordingly, the moral legitimacy of the Constitutional Court is framed as Dworkinian Rights-Based Judicial Review. From this perspective, constitutional adjudication serves as a shield for minorities against the dangers of majoritarian democracy and the tyranny of the majority. The Constitutional Court is therefore indispensable, as it upholds individual rights against legislative power, based on the principle of equal concern and respect.
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