Articles
<![CDATA[Why Did the Adoption of Constitutional Deferral Lead to Unintended Consequences of Freedom of Association in Indonesia? ]]>
<![CDATA[Andy Omara]]>;
<![CDATA[Kristina Viri]]>;
<![CDATA[Faiz Rahman]]>
<![CDATA[ Sriwijaya Law Review Volume 8 Issue 1, January 2024 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Faculty of Law, Sriwijaya University, Indonesia ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.28946/slrev.Vol8.Iss1.2148.pp60-78
<![CDATA[A constitutional deferral is an approach utilised by constitutional drafters so that the drafters do not regulate things in detail in the constitution. This approach is believed to provide more opportunity for the constitutional framers to achieve consensus in drafting a constitution. In the end, this helps a constitution last longer. Constitutional deferral also offers some flexibility for the legislative and the judiciary in interpreting the text of the constitution in the future, which may accommodate the original intentions of the constitutional drafters. This paper argues the opposite. In Indonesia, adopting constitutional deferral causes an uncertain future of freedom of association. This paper aims to address two central questions. First, why did the framers of the first constitution adopt constitutional deferral in drafting provisions on freedom of association? Second, what are the consequences of implementing constitutional deferral toward freedom of association in Indonesia? Through historical and doctrinal approaches, the paper concludes (1) that the sharp ideological differences among constitutional drafters when drafting provisions on freedom of association forced them to employ constitutional deferral. (2) The use of constitutional deferral opens more possibilities for inconsistent interpretation by the executive, the lawmakers, and the judiciary when they establish law or adjudicated cases related to freedom of association. Through constitutional deferral, these three branches of government limit freedom of association instead of protecting such freedom.]]>
<![CDATA[Why Not Indonesia an Islamic State? Constitutional Debate Concerning Religion-State Relation in A Muslim Majority Country ]]>
<![CDATA[Omara, Andy]]>
<![CDATA[ Samarah: Jurnal Hukum Keluarga dan Hukum Islam Vol 8, No 1 (2024): Samarah: Jurnal Hukum Keluarga dan Hukum Islam ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Islamic Family Law Department, Sharia and Law Faculty, Universitas Islam Negeri Ar-Raniry ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.22373/sjhk.v8i1.15889
<![CDATA[When Muslims are majority in a particular country, it is often linked to the adoption of Islam as the state official religion or Islam as the identity of the state i.e. “Islamic State.” Yet, this is not the case of Indonesia. Why did not the Indonesian constitutional drafters declare Indonesia as an Islamic state or at least recognize Islam as the state official religion in the first Constitution despite the fact that Indonesia is a Muslim majority country? What explains the above fact? This paper aims to answer these two important questions by employing two constitutional law approaches: constitutional history and constitutional deferral. Constitutional history aims to understand the original intentions of the framers of the first Constitution through studying the minutes of the 1st Constitution. Constitutional deferral concept is used to explain the formulation of state-religion relation in the provisions of the first Constitution. This paper argues the fact that the constitutional drafters did not expressly state Islam as the state official religion in the Constitution did not mean that they overlooked to discuss such an important topic, rather because they had diverse views on how to include religion-state relation in the constitution. The sharp ideological difference among constitutional drafters is likely the cause of the adoption of constitutional deferral -a method of drafting constitutional through somewhat general and abstract provisions. The use of constitutional deferral is favorable because it opens more opportunity among constitutional drafters to achieve consensus and get things done. In practice, Indonesia is not a country officially based on Islam, but substantially Islamic values live in Indonesia. This article contributes to the study of the relationship between state and religion in Indonesia, regarding the current and future background and dialectics.]]>
<![CDATA[Relasi Pancasila dengan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Sebagai Sumber Hukum di Indonesia: Relasi Pancasila dengan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Sebagai Sumber Hukum di Indonesia ]]>
<![CDATA[Muttaqin, Labib]]>;
<![CDATA[Atmoredjo, Sudjito]]>;
<![CDATA[Omara, Andy]]>
<![CDATA[ Jurnal Konstitusi Vol. 21 No. 1 (2024) ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia, Indonesia ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.31078/jk2115
<![CDATA[Pancasila maupun Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi keduanya sama-sama berkedudukan sebagai sumber hukum dalam pembentukan peraturan perundang-undangan. Oleh karena itu, tulisan ini bermaksud untuk menganalisis bagaimana relasi yang harus dibangun antara Pancasila dengan Putusan MK sebagai sumber hukum. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum normatif, data dalam tulisan bersumber pada bahan-bahan hukum baik bahan hukum primer, sekunder, maupun tersier. Oleh karena itu, teknik pengumpulan data yang dipilih adalah studi pustaka. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukan bahwa Putusan MK yang bersifat mengatur (konstitusional-inkonstitusional bersyarat dan yang merumuskan norma baru) menjadikan Putusan MK sebagai sumber hukum mengikat yang memiliki implikasi besar dalam mengkonstruksi pembentukan peraturan perundang-undangan. Pada titik ini, Hakim Konstitusi harus bisa merelasikan dan mensinkronkan putusan yang dibuatnya dengan Pancasila, mengingat sebagai sumber hukum Pancasila merupakan sumber hukum dasar nasional dan sumber segala sumber hukum di Indonesia.]]>
<![CDATA[Why Constitutional Courts Back Death Penalty? Insights from Indonesia and South Korea ]]>
<![CDATA[Omara, Andy]]>;
<![CDATA[Rahman, Faiz]]>
<![CDATA[ Volksgeist: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum dan Konstitusi Vol. 7 Issue 2 (2024) Volksgeist: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum Dan Konstitusi ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Faculty of Sharia, Universitas Islam Negeri (UIN) Profesor Kiai Haji Saifuddin Zuhri Purwokerto, Indonesia ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.24090/volksgeist.v7i2.10773
<![CDATA[This article explores the paradoxical affirmation of the death penalty by the Constitutional Courts in Indonesia and South Korea, despite constitutional guarantees for the right to life and the fundamental right of human dignity. Through historical and content analyses, it explores how these courts interpret these rights in relation to the death penalty and why they affirm it constitutional. Both countries recognise the nonderogable nature of these rights, yet their Constitutional Courts allow for legal restrictions. Constitutional Court’s decision to impose limitations on nonderogable rights demonstrates their preference for maintaining a cautious and conservative approach. The examination of Constitutional Courts’ decisions reveals that the debate over the death penalty’s constitutionality extends beyond legal considerations, involving political dynamics and historical factors. This article underscores the complex interplay between constitutional guarantees, judicial interpretation, and sociopolitical contexts in shaping the countries’ human rights protection trajectories, especially in the context of nonderogable rights. It also highlights the crucial role of Constitutional Courts in safeguarding the right to life, as their decisions can significantly impact human rights protection in these countries.]]>
<![CDATA[The Importance of Institutional Arrangement to Safeguard Maritime Security and Safety in Indonesia: The Case of Marine Security and Safety Agency ]]>
<![CDATA[Omara, Andy]]>
<![CDATA[ SASI Volume 30 Issue 1, March 2024 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Faculty of Law, Universitas Pattimura ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.47268/sasi.v30i1.1789
<![CDATA[Introduction: Multiple agencies approach has been adopted by the Indonesian government to ensure maritime security and safety. The involvement of multiple actors potentially leads to overlapping authorities and an uncoordinated operation. For stakeholders at sea, such approach is inefficient, ineffective and creates confusion. The situation needs to be addressed to make more a coordinated, efficient, and effective method. This paper tries to address such an issue through institutional law lens.Purposes of the Research: This paper aims to answer three important questions (1) How is the enforcement of security and safety at sea so far? (2) What are the implications as the many institutions involved in the enforcement of safety and security at sea? and (3) What kind of institutional arrangements to be made in the future so that law enforcement at sea becomes effective and efficient?.Methods of the Research: This study utilizes a normative legal approach. It exercises legal doctrines, relevant laws and regulations. It is also suplemented by relevant literatures, books, journals, and media coverages.Results of the Research: This paper finds that the enforcement of security and safety at sea adopts multi agencies where many institutions involved in maintaining security and safety at sea. The fact that multiple institutions simultaniously participate in law enforcement at sea, potentially create overlapping and lack of coordination among them. This also creates confusion and disadvantage to the stakeholders. Therefore, it is necessary to reorganize the current institutional arrangements to minimize the problems on the ground.]]>
<![CDATA[Is the Legislator in the Constitutional Court? Examining the Tension Between Judiciary and Democracy in Indonesia ]]>
<![CDATA[Muttaqin, Labib]]>;
<![CDATA[Omara, Andy]]>;
<![CDATA[Atmoredjo, Sudjito]]>;
<![CDATA[Fikri AR, M]]>
<![CDATA[ Journal of Indonesian Legal Studies Vol. 10 No. 1 (2025): Legal Transformation and Policy Challenges in Indonesia: Navigating Technology ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Universitas Negeri Semarang ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.15294/jils.v10i1.13494
<![CDATA[In cases of judicial review, the extension of the Constitutional Court's authority from negative to positive legislators contests the potential conflicts with democratic institutions, particularly parliament and the government. This study aims to analyze four key aspects: the legitimacy of the Constitutional Court in making Positive Legislature decisions, the conflicts that emerge between democratic institutions and the Constitutional Court due to the issuance of positive legislature decisions, Constitutional Courts as positive legislators in a comparative study, and the efforts undertaken to resolve conflicts. The research utilized a doctrinal legal research method, relying on secondary data gathered across literature pieces and analyzed qualitatively. The findings reveal that the Constitutional Court's decision to take on a positive legislator role has sparked conflicts between the courts and democratic institutions in Indonesia. This conflict was exemplified when parliament and the government withstand Constitutional Court Decision No. 91/PPUU-XVIII/2020, which declared certain provisions of Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation somehow conditionally unconstitutional. Viewed from a global perspective, the Constitutional Court's role as a positive legislator also challenges democracy issues in many countries. To mitigate such conflicts, it is crucial to establish a mutual understanding among the Constitutional Court, parliament, and the government regarding the guidelines that the Constitutional Court should follow while making positive legislature decisions and the implementation by parliament and the President.]]>
<![CDATA[Cryptocurrency: Highlighting the Approach, Regulations, and Protection in Indonesia and European Union ]]>
<![CDATA[Tauda, Gunawan A.]]>;
<![CDATA[Omara, Andy]]>;
<![CDATA[Arnone, Gioia]]>
<![CDATA[ BESTUUR Vol 11, No 1 (2023): Bestuur ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Administrative Law Departement Faculty of Law Universitas Sebelas Mare ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.20961/bestuur.v11i1.67125
<![CDATA[The speed of the adoption and use of cryptocurrency that utilizes blockchain technology as its central infrastructure is expanding globally, including in Indonesia. It has promising prospects as a future asset and payment instrument. However, the regulations in Indonesia are often delayed and inadequate for dealing with cryptocurrency's developments. This research is intended to analyze the approaches, regulations, and protection of the use of cryptocurrency. This study argues that the regulatory approach to using cryptocurrency is balanced, while Indonesia has a partial status in cryptocurrency legality. The government’s protection of cryptocurrency investors is adequate in using cryptocurrency as a commodity traded on futures exchanges with a license from Bappebti. A progressive policy for establishing the Digital Asset Law by the government is important due to the resultant clarity in the regulatory status of cryptocurrency will allow the ecosystem to grow and promote innovation, thus harnessing the benefits of cryptocurrency while mitigating related risks.]]>
<![CDATA[Why Did the Adoption of Constitutional Deferral Lead to Unintended Consequences of Freedom of Association in Indonesia? ]]>
<![CDATA[Andy Omara]]>;
<![CDATA[Kristina Viri]]>;
<![CDATA[Faiz Rahman]]>
<![CDATA[ Sriwijaya Law Review Volume 8 Issue 1, January 2024 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Faculty of Law, Sriwijaya University, Indonesia ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.28946/slrev.Vol8.Iss1.2148.pp60-78
<![CDATA[A constitutional deferral is an approach utilised by constitutional drafters so that the drafters do not regulate things in detail in the constitution. This approach is believed to provide more opportunity for the constitutional framers to achieve consensus in drafting a constitution. In the end, this helps a constitution last longer. Constitutional deferral also offers some flexibility for the legislative and the judiciary in interpreting the text of the constitution in the future, which may accommodate the original intentions of the constitutional drafters. This paper argues the opposite. In Indonesia, adopting constitutional deferral causes an uncertain future of freedom of association. This paper aims to address two central questions. First, why did the framers of the first constitution adopt constitutional deferral in drafting provisions on freedom of association? Second, what are the consequences of implementing constitutional deferral toward freedom of association in Indonesia? Through historical and doctrinal approaches, the paper concludes (1) that the sharp ideological differences among constitutional drafters when drafting provisions on freedom of association forced them to employ constitutional deferral. (2) The use of constitutional deferral opens more possibilities for inconsistent interpretation by the executive, the lawmakers, and the judiciary when they establish law or adjudicated cases related to freedom of association. Through constitutional deferral, these three branches of government limit freedom of association instead of protecting such freedom.]]>
<![CDATA[Ratio Legis Kedudukan Hukum Pemohon dalam Pengujian Undang-Undang oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi ]]>
<![CDATA[Dian Agung Wicaksono]]>;
<![CDATA[Andy Omara]]>
<![CDATA[ Jurnal Penelitian Hukum De Jure Vol 20 No 4 (2020): Edisi Desember ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Law Policy Strategy Agency, Ministry of Law of The Republic of Indonesia ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.30641/dejure.2020.V20.487-510
<![CDATA[Penelitian mengenai ratio legis kedudukan hukum Pemohon dalam pengujian UU merupakan penelitian fundamental yang perlu untuk dilakukan dalam rangka mengetahui aspek sejarah hukum mengenai asal usul pengaturan mengenai kedudukan hukum Pemohon dalam pengujian UU. Temuan dari penelitian ini merupakan bagian yang tidak terpisahkan dari penelitian hukum dalam studi doktoral mengenai dinamika kedudukan hukum Pemohon pada pengujian UU oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi. Penelitian ini secara spesifik menjawab pertanyaan: (a) Apa ratio legis dari pengaturan kualifikasi aktor sebagai Pemohon pada pengujian UU? (b) Apa ratio legis dari Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam merumuskan syarat kerugian konstitusional Pemohon pada pengujian UU? Penelitian ini menggunakan metode yuridis normatif, dengan menganalisis data sekunder berupa peraturan perundang-undangan, putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi, dan literatur yang terkait dengan doktrin kedudukan hukum dalam pengujian UU. Hasil dari penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa ratio legis dari pengaturan kualifikasi aktor sebagai Pemohon pada pengujian UU sejatinya merupakan rumusan yang dikembangkan dari PerMA 2/2002, sedangkan ratio legis dari Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam merumuskan syarat kerugian konstitusional didasarkan pada: (a) ketentuan Pasal 51 Ayat (1) UU MK secara expressis verbis; (b) doktrin the objective theory of constitutional invalidity dan doktrin a broad approach to standing; serta (c) doktrin causation dan doktrin redressability dari praktik peradilan di Amerika Serikat.]]>
