Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Jurnal Konstitusi Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan
Enrico Simanjuntak, Enrico
Unknown Affiliation
Economics, Econometrics & Finance Environmental Science Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Other

Published : 6 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 6 Documents
Search

 1 
Pengujian Perda dan Perdes Pasca Perubahan UU Pemda dan UU Desa Simanjuntak, Enrico
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol 13, No 3 (2016)
Publisher : Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (351.815 KB) | DOI: 10.31078/jk1338

Abstract

The development of contemporary public law (both in the field of constitutional law and administrative law) in Indonesia was marked by the strengthening of the internal settlement administration assertion as a means of testing the legal norms of both abstract and concrete. With variations, in a legal dispute concerning the norms of concrete, these developments containing fragmentation models for partly governs how the advanced mechanism in the judiciary after taken administrative effort (eg, Law Administration) and some not at all set up (eg, Law Reform State Civil). Some of the latest legislation select general-abstract norm testing internally without linking them with the possibility of testing judicially by the judiciary, among others: Law on Local Government and Law Village. In both the legislation does not regulate how the mechanism of local regulation (Perda) or village laws (Perdes) canceled by the governor or regent / mayor, whether they can be tested back to the judiciary through judicial review mechanism. This paper intends to discuss how the implementation of the authority of judicial review by Supreme Court after the enactment Law of Local Goverment or Law of Village which is not regulated by the latest legal mechanism to test regional law in the form of regulation (local laws), including Perdes (Village Laws), whereas previous products or similar laws regulate otherwise.
Peran Yurisprudensi dalam Sistem Hukum di Indonesia Simanjuntak, Enrico
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol 16, No 1 (2019)
Publisher : Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (451.629 KB) | DOI: 10.31078/jk1615

Abstract

Karakteristik sistem hukum common law adalah hukum yang berorientasi kepada kasus (case-law), sedangkan sistem civil law, hukum berorientasi kepada undang-undang (codified-law). Namun peraturan perundang-undangan sebagai basis legalitas hukum dalam tradisi Rechtstaats, memiliki keterbatasan tersendiri. Peraturan perundang-undangan tidak pernah mengatur secara lengkap dan detail bagaimana pemenuhan aturan hukum dalam setiap peristiwa hukum, oleh karenanya yurisprudensi lah yang akan melengkapinya. Selain untuk mengisi kekosongan hukum, yurisprudensi merupakan instrumen hukum dalam rangka menjaga kepastian hukum. Tulisan ini berusaha mengkaji kedudukan yurisprudensi dikaitkan dengan tugas dan fungsi MK sebagai pengawal konstitusi, bukan sebagai penegak undang-undang. Metode analisis yang digunakan adalah studi pustaka dengan pendekatan perbandingan. Kesimpulan yang didapat dalam penelitian ini adalah bahwa yurisprudensi merupakan salah satu sumber hukum yang penting dalam tradisi civil law. Setiap diskursus tentang yurisprudensi dalam tradisi civil law mengisyaratkan bahwa tradisi civil law mengakui hukum selain yang tertuang dalam bentuk undang-undang, juga terdapat hukum yang bersumber dari hukum hakim (judge made law) (rechtstersrecht) yang lebih dikenal dengan nama yurisprudensi (jurisprudentierecht).The characteristics of the common law legal system are case-law, whereas the civil law system, the law is codified-law. However, legislation as the basis of legal legality in the tradition of Rechtstaats, has its own limitations. Legislation never regulates in full and detail how compliance with the laws in every legal circumtances, therefore it is jurisprudence that will complement it. In addition to filling a legal vacuum, jurisprudence is a key legal instrument in order to maintain legal certainty. This paper seeks to examine the position of jurisprudence associated with the duties and functions of the Constitutional Court as a guardian of the constitution, not merely as statute enforcement. The analytical method used is a literature study with a comparative approach. The conclusion obtained in this study is that jurisprudence is an important source of law in the civil law tradition. Any discourse on jurisprudence in the civil law tradition implies that the civil law tradition recognizes law other than those contained in statutes, there is also a law that comes from judge made law (rechtstersrecht) better known as jurisprudence (jurisprudentierecht).
PERKARA FIKTIF POSITIF DAN PERMASALAHAN HUKUMNYA Simanjuntak, Enrico
Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan Vol 6 No 3 (2017)
Publisher : Pusat Strategi Kebijakan Hukum dan Peradilan Mahkamah Agung RI

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25216/jhp.6.3.2017.379-398

Abstract

Law of Administration (UUAP) has adopted a conception of Lex Silencio Positivo, a legal mechanism that requires the administering authority to respond or issue a decision/action brought before it within the limit of a certain time and if these preconditions are not met, the administering authority is deemed to have granted the application for the issuance of the decision/action it. As a new legal concept, rules of lex silentio positivo the realm of administrative law that Indonesia is known as “fictitious approval” or “tacit authorization” requires assessment, harmonization with the provisions of the previous law, namely the concept of fictitious negative decision. This paper intends to discuss some key notes concerning the conception of fictitious positive in Indonesia administrative law.Keywords: law of administration, fictitious approval, fictitious rejection
REKONSEPTUALISASI PENGADILAN PERTANAHAN Simanjuntak, Enrico
Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan Vol 3 No 3 (2014)
Publisher : Pusat Strategi Kebijakan Hukum dan Peradilan Mahkamah Agung RI

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25216/jhp.3.3.2014.253-268

Abstract

There are at least three basic argument behind the idea of settlement of the special land dispute court, namely : first, the recognizing of the land bill drafter of the complexity of the land disputes. Second, the idea of settlement of special land dispute court is intended to restore the previous special court (Landreform Court) in the sixties era. Three, the special land dispute court of land is basically intended to repair the malfuncion of present court in settlement of the land disputes. But the academic draft and bill of land rises some questions about the know-how land disputes of the bill’s drafter, it proposes that this academic draft and bill of land does not take a sufficiently deep assessment. The author assumes that the flaws of academic draft is relating to the lack of legal problem mapping in land disputes, including the basic knowledge of legal system in land disputes. This situation reflects the banality of data and legal situation analysis which affects the misconception of the elemental interconection of legal normative with the structure of social aspect by jumpling to conclusion and forced conclusion. Finally, some solution which is proposed in this bill of land is diametrically opposed with the basic need of agrarian reforms and judicial empowerment project, especially administrative court. Keywords: Bill of land, Land Court, Administrative Court
PROSPEK OMBUDSMAN REPUBLIK INDONESIA DALAM RANGKA MEMPERKUAT PELAKSANAAN EKSEKUSI PUTUSAN PERADILAN TATA USAHA NEGARA Simanjuntak, Enrico
Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan Vol 3 No 2 (2014)
Publisher : Pusat Strategi Kebijakan Hukum dan Peradilan Mahkamah Agung RI

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25216/jhp.3.2.2014.163-176

Abstract

The position and function of Administrative Court so weak that the verdict is much neglected. Referring to the approach of the legal system, where the Administrative Court and Ombudsmen of Republic of Indonesia (ORI) equally aims to promote good governance and ensure the legal protection of the public from the actions of public administration law, the ORI is possible to be handed the duties and responsibilities as independent executor PERATUN decision. In the meantime, the Ombudsmen should be given the authority to promote, supervise and impose sanctions against the defendant who is not willing to implement the decision PERATUN or against other parties who obstruct the implementation of the decision PERATUN. Keywords: Administrative Court, Ombudsmen of the Republic of Indonesia, Independet Executor.
KEWENANGAN HAK UJI MATERIL PADA MAHKAMAH AGUNG RI Simanjuntak, Enrico
Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan Vol 2 No 3 (2013)
Publisher : Pusat Strategi Kebijakan Hukum dan Peradilan Mahkamah Agung RI

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25216/jhp.2.3.2013.337-356

Abstract

Under art 24A(1) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is granted the power to review legal instruments below laws (undang-undang). This means that an applicant could seek judicial review of regulations other than Acts of Parliament (Undang-Undang) with a request to strike it out because, for example, it contravenes national laws. This would provide the courts with an opportunity to review the legitimacy of the regulation and determine whether it is ultra vires, or beyond power. The Supreme Court has the power to cancel a regulation if it is found to be in conflict with a higher law. This article analyses the judicial review in the Supreme Court. It begins by highlighting the origins and formation of judicial review before the regulation promulgation of the Supreme Court (PERMA) No. 1/1993, and then examines several aspects of procedural law in the current Supreme Court Regulation in No. 1/2011. Keywords: Supreme Court, Judicial Review, Procedural Law.
Co-Authors