Baharuddin Riqiey
Universitas 17 Agustus 1945 Surabaya

Published : 5 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 5 Documents
Search

PROBLEMATIKA KONSTITUSIONALITAS PRESIDENTIAL THRESHOLD DI INDONESIA Sultoni Fikri; Baharuddin Riqiey; Muhammad Iffatul L; Miftaqul Janah
Jurnal Hukum Positum Vol. 7 No. 1 (2022): Jurnal Hukum Positum
Publisher : Prodi Magister Ilmu Hukum Fakultas Hukum Universitas Singaperbangsa Karawang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.35706/positum.v7i1.6643

Abstract

Abstrak Presidential threshold terus menjadi perdebatan di kalangan masyarakat, aturan yang dinilai merugikan masyarakat dan partai politik ini terus di uji konstitusionalitasnya di MK. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengkaji putusan MK terkait persoalan presidensial threshold sekaligus sedikit membandingkan dengan negara lain yang menerapkan sistem presidensial seperti Indonesia. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian hukum (legal research) dengan tipe penelitian hukum normatif. yang mana pendekatan yang di pakai adalah pendekatan dengan peraturan perundang-undangan dan peraturan lainnya. Bahan hukum yang digunakan adalah bahan hukum primer dan sekunder. Hasil penelitian menujukkan bahwa hingga saat ini aturan mengenai presidensial threshold masih konstitusionalitas, namun presidensial threshold tidak dikenal dalam negara-negara lain yang menerapkan sistem presidensial. Kata kunci: Presidensial Threshold, Pemilihan Umum, Presidensial. Abstract The presidential threshold continues to be debated among the public, and the rules that are considered detrimental to the community and political parties continue to be tested for constitutionality in the Constitutional Court. This study aims to examine the Constitutional Court's decision related to the presidential threshold issue as well as to slightly compare it with other countries that implement a presidential system such as Indonesia. This research is legal research with a normative legal research type. where the approach used is an approach with laws and regulations and other regulations. The legal materials used are primary and secondary legal materials. The results of the study show that until now the rules regarding the presidential threshold are still constitutional, but the presidential threshold is not known in other countries that implement presidential systems. Keywords: Presidential Threshold, General Election, Presidential.
Pembatasan Masa Jabatan Ketua Umum Parpol Dalam Perspektif Demokrasi Baharuddin Riqiey; Adella Anggia Pramesti; Alif Cahya Sakti
Jurnal Mengkaji Indonesia Vol. 1 No. 1 (2022): July
Publisher : CV. Era Digital Nusantara

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (179.993 KB)

Abstract

Abstract: This research aims to review and know the authority of the government to regulate the term of the chairman of a political party and review and analyze the urgency of limiting the term of the chairman of a political party. Purpose: The problem that occurs in political parties in Indonesia today is that there is no regulation of the term of the chairman of the political party it causes the creation of a healthy democracy, the emergence of dynastic politics, and the lack of regeneration in the body of political parties. Design/Methodology/Approach: This research is legal research with a normative legal research type. Which approach is used is an approach with laws and regulations and other regulations. The legal materials used are primary and secondary legal materials. Findings: The results of the study showed that the government is authorized to regulate the term of office of the party's general chairman, through the revision of the Political Party Law related to the regulation of the term of the chairman of the political party. Originality/value: there is no article that discusses the limitation of the term of office of the chairman of a political party, so this is an article that discusses the urgency of limiting the term of office of the chairman of a political party.
PEMILIHAN KEPALA DAERAH OLEH DEWAN PERWAKILAN RAKYAT DAERAH PASCA PUTUSAN MK NO. 85/PUU-XX/2022: Regional Head Elections by People’s Legislative Council after the Prevailing of Constitutional Court Decision No 85/PUU-XX/2022 Baharuddin Riqiey
Constitution Journal Vol. 2 No. 1 (2023): Constitution Journal June 2023
Publisher : Universitas Islam Negeri Kiai Haji Achmad Siddiq Jember

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.35719/constitution.v2i1.42

Abstract

The regional head election can be held in two models, namely direct election or election through People’s Legislative Council. Both are constitutional as stated in Constitutional Court Decision No. 97/PUU-XI/2013. However, after the prevailing of Constitutional Court Decision No. 85/PUU-XX/2022, which does not differentiate between general election and regional head election, then as one of the principles contained in Article 22E of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, namely the principle of "direct" becomes a problem. Thus, the aim of the paper is to examine and analyze the true meaning of the phrase "elected democratically" in Article 18 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, and the constitutionality of Regional Head Elections by People’s Legislative Council as well as who has the authority to decide disputes over the regional head elections. Legal research method with normative design was applied. The research findings indicate that the phrase "elected democratically" in Article 18 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia means that regional heads can be directly elected by the people or through People’s Legislative Council; but after the prevailing of Constitutional Court Decision No. 85/PUU-XX/2022, Regional Head Election through People’s Legislative Council is unconstitutional because it has been already included into the category of general election and must be carried out directly to the people as mandated in Article 22E of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, and the Constitutional Court  has the authority to decide disputes over the elections. Keywords: Pilkada, DPRD, Constitutional Court. Mekanisme pemilihan kepala daerah dapat dilaksanakan dengan dua model, yaitu dapat dilakukan secara langsung oleh rakyat, dan dapat dilakukan oleh DPRD. Dua model tersebut merupakan dua model yang konstitusional sebagaimana halnya dalam Putusan MK No. 97/PUU-XI/2013. Akan tetapi setelah lahirnya Putusan MK No. 85/PUU-XX/2022, yang mana tidak lagi membedakan antara rezim Pemilu dengan rezim Pilkada, maka sebagai salah satu asas yang terdapat pada Pasal 22E UUD NRI 1945 yakni asas “langsung” maka hal ini menjadi persoalan. Dengan demikian tujuan dari penulisan ini adalah untuk mengkaji dan menganalisis makna sesungguhnya dari frasa “dipilih secara demokratis” dalam Pasal 18 ayat (4) UUD NRI 1945, serta konstitusionalitas Pemilihan Kepala Daerah oleh DPRD, dan siapa yang berwenang dalam memutus perselisihan hasil sengketa Pilkada. Metode yang digunakan adalah metode penelitian hukum dengan tipe penelitian normatif. Hasil penelitian ini menujukkan bahwa makna frasa “dipilih secara demokratis” dalam Pasal 18 ayat (4) UUD NRI 1945 dapat dipilih langsung oleh rakyat maupun juga dapat dipilih oleh DPRD akan tetapi pasca Putusan MK No. 85/PUU-XX/2022 Pemilihan Kepala Daerah oleh DPRD adalah inkonstitusional sebab Pilkada sudah masuk di dalam kategori rezim Pemilu dan harus dilakukan secara langsung oleh rakyat sebagaimana amanat dalam Pasal 22E UUD NRI 1945, dan yang berwenang dalam memutus perselisihan hasil sengketa Pilkada adalah MK. Kata Kunci : Pilkada, DPRD, Mahkamah Konstitusi
PEMILIHAN KEPALA DAERAH OLEH DEWAN PERWAKILAN RAKYAT DAERAH PASCA PUTUSAN MK NO. 85/PUU-XX/2022: Regional Head Elections by People’s Legislative Council after the Prevailing of Constitutional Court Decision No 85/PUU-XX/2022 Baharuddin Riqiey
Constitution Journal Vol. 2 No. 1 (2023): Constitution Journal June 2023
Publisher : UIN Kiai Haji Achmad Siddiq Jember

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.35719/constitution.v2i1.42

Abstract

The regional head election can be held in two models, namely direct election or election through People’s Legislative Council. Both are constitutional as stated in Constitutional Court Decision No. 97/PUU-XI/2013. However, after the prevailing of Constitutional Court Decision No. 85/PUU-XX/2022, which does not differentiate between general election and regional head election, then as one of the principles contained in Article 22E of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, namely the principle of "direct" becomes a problem. Thus, the aim of the paper is to examine and analyze the true meaning of the phrase "elected democratically" in Article 18 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, and the constitutionality of Regional Head Elections by People’s Legislative Council as well as who has the authority to decide disputes over the regional head elections. Legal research method with normative design was applied. The research findings indicate that the phrase "elected democratically" in Article 18 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia means that regional heads can be directly elected by the people or through People’s Legislative Council; but after the prevailing of Constitutional Court Decision No. 85/PUU-XX/2022, Regional Head Election through People’s Legislative Council is unconstitutional because it has been already included into the category of general election and must be carried out directly to the people as mandated in Article 22E of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, and the Constitutional Court  has the authority to decide disputes over the elections. Keywords: Pilkada, DPRD, Constitutional Court. Mekanisme pemilihan kepala daerah dapat dilaksanakan dengan dua model, yaitu dapat dilakukan secara langsung oleh rakyat, dan dapat dilakukan oleh DPRD. Dua model tersebut merupakan dua model yang konstitusional sebagaimana halnya dalam Putusan MK No. 97/PUU-XI/2013. Akan tetapi setelah lahirnya Putusan MK No. 85/PUU-XX/2022, yang mana tidak lagi membedakan antara rezim Pemilu dengan rezim Pilkada, maka sebagai salah satu asas yang terdapat pada Pasal 22E UUD NRI 1945 yakni asas “langsung” maka hal ini menjadi persoalan. Dengan demikian tujuan dari penulisan ini adalah untuk mengkaji dan menganalisis makna sesungguhnya dari frasa “dipilih secara demokratis” dalam Pasal 18 ayat (4) UUD NRI 1945, serta konstitusionalitas Pemilihan Kepala Daerah oleh DPRD, dan siapa yang berwenang dalam memutus perselisihan hasil sengketa Pilkada. Metode yang digunakan adalah metode penelitian hukum dengan tipe penelitian normatif. Hasil penelitian ini menujukkan bahwa makna frasa “dipilih secara demokratis” dalam Pasal 18 ayat (4) UUD NRI 1945 dapat dipilih langsung oleh rakyat maupun juga dapat dipilih oleh DPRD akan tetapi pasca Putusan MK No. 85/PUU-XX/2022 Pemilihan Kepala Daerah oleh DPRD adalah inkonstitusional sebab Pilkada sudah masuk di dalam kategori rezim Pemilu dan harus dilakukan secara langsung oleh rakyat sebagaimana amanat dalam Pasal 22E UUD NRI 1945, dan yang berwenang dalam memutus perselisihan hasil sengketa Pilkada adalah MK. Kata Kunci : Pilkada, DPRD, Mahkamah Konstitusi
Mekanisme Pembubaran Partai Politik: Perbandingan Indonesia dan Turki Baharuddin Riqiey
PLEDOI (Jurnal Hukum dan Keadilan) Vol. 3 No. 1 (2024): Maret
Publisher : Amal Insani Foundation

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.56721/pledoi.v3i1.303

Abstract

Political parties are not sacred, so they can be dissolved according to the provisions of the applicable laws. The mechanism for dissolving political parties in each country is certainly different. So this research aims to examine the differences in mechanisms for the dissolution of political parties in Indonesia and Turkey. This research is legal research with a statutory and conceptual approach. The results of this research show that the mechanism for dissolving political parties in Indonesia and Turkey is both submitted to the Constitutional Court. Still, specifically for Turkey, it must go through the Court of Cassation first. The applicant who can apply for the dissolution of a political party in Indonesia is the Government which can be represented by the Attorney General and/or the Minister assigned by the President while in Turkey the person who can apply is the Chief Public Prosecutor. The reasons for the dissolution of political parties in Indonesia are because (i) the ideology, principles, objectives, and programs of political parties conflict with the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia; (ii) carrying out activities that endanger the integrity and safety of the Republic of Indonesia; and (iii) adhere to, develop and spread the teachings or understanding of communism/Marxism-Leninism. Meanwhile, the reasons for the dissolution of political parties in Turkey are: (i) the statutes and programs, as well as the activities of political parties be contrary to the independence of the State, its indivisible integrity with its territory and nation, human rights, the principles of equality and rule of law, sovereignty of the nation, the principles of the democratic and secular republic; (ii) aim to promote or establish class or group dictatorship or dictatorship of any kind, nor shall they incite citizens to crime; and (iii) receive financial assistance from abroad.