Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.444
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Widya Yuridika
Ilham Dwi Rafiqi
Faculty of Law University of Muhammadiyah
Arts Humanities Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

 1 
Tafsir Wewenang Seponering Jaksa Agung Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 29/PUU-XIV/2016 Ilham Dwi Rafiqi
Widya Yuridika Vol 4, No 2 (2021): Widya Yuridika: Jurnal Hukum
Publisher : Universitas Widya Gama Malang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31328/wy.v4i2.2614

Abstract

The affirmation of the attorney general's authority in the Elucidation of Article 35 letter C of the Indonesian Prosecutor's Law after the decision of the Constitutional Court Number 29/PUU-XIV/2016 still leaves problems and has the potential to cause new legal problems. This research will look at and analyze how the authority of the Attorney General after the decision is as well as how the concept of an ideal arrangement that ensures legal certainty. This research uses normative juridical research with a statutory approach and case studies which in this case are court decisions. The results showed that after Constitutional Court decision, there was a change in the meaning of the Elucidation of Article 35 letter c of the Republic of Indonesia Prosecutor's Law. Based on the results of these interpretations and decisions, the legal implications that followed were related to the conditions for setting aside cases in the public interest, namely in setting aside cases in the public interest, the Attorney General was required to 'require' first to pay attention to suggestions and opinions from state power agencies that have relationship with the problem. The concept of an ideal arrangement that can guarantee legal certainty as an indicator to measure and assess the implementation of the Attorney General's obligations can be done by clarifying the definition of "state power agencies" for which advice and opinions are requested and making criteria for the term "public interest".
Perbandingan Konstitusi Negara Indonesia Dan Rusia Ilham Dwi Rafiqi
Widya Yuridika Vol 5, No 1 (2022): Widya Yuridika: Jurnal Hukum
Publisher : Universitas Widya Gama Malang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31328/wy.v5i1.3561

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to analyze and compare the state constitutions of Indonesia and Russia, particularly in relation to state institutions, separation of powers, and institutions for interpreting the constitution. This study uses a normative juridical research method with a statutory approach and a comparative approach. The results of the study show that in terms of institutions, Indonesia and Russia both adhere to the trias politica separation. However, in terms of the government system, there are differences, if Indonesia adheres to a purely presidential system of government, the Russian Federation adheres to semi-presidential. As for the institutions of interpreting the constitution, there are also similarities and differences. Similarities such as being an interpreter of the constitution, being a dispute resolution institution for state institutions to providing opinions on impeachment. The difference is that if the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia has the authority to decide on the dissolution of political parties and disputes regarding the results of the general election, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation does not have that authority. On the other hand, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation does not have the authority, for example, to receive complaints about violations of constitutional rights, to decide on the constitutionality of agreements between Russian state government agencies, and to decide on the normative actions of Russian state officials.
Co-Authors