Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.23
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Arena Hukum
Benediktus Hestu Cipto Handoyo
Universitas Atmajaya
Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice

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

Found 2 Documents
Search

 1 
KONSTRUKSI PANDANGAN CRITICAL LEGAL THEORY TENTANG THE RULE OF LAW, THE MEANING OF LAW, DAN THE LAW AND SOCIETY Benediktus Hestu Cipto Handoyo
Arena Hukum Vol. 11 No. 3 (2018)
Publisher : Arena Hukum

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.21776/ub.arenahukum.2018.01003.1

Abstract

AbstractParadigm between the theory of legal positivism and the flow of legal realism shows a difference. The two legal theory paradigms are used as an introduction in discussing Postmodern Legal Theory or called Critical Legal Theory, because the two theories above show the characteristics of Traditional Legal Theory, especially in looking at the rule of law, the meaning of law, and the law and society. The problem in this article is how is the Critical Legal Theory's view of legal concepts specifically related to the rule of law, the meaning of law, and the law and society? Is the statement as stated by Gary Saalman acceptable or not? And does postmodern legal theory do occur in legal reality in Indonesia? This article uses a normative juridical method and a comparison of legal theories through a philosophical approach. The results showed that deconstruction of the old legal theory and included in the postmodern framework in the field of law, although it seemed blindly and "cleared" all the reliability of legal theory, but still contained its own advantages, because with the view of postmodernism itself basic ideas such as philosophy, rationality , and epistemology is questioned radically again.  AbstrakParadigma antara Teori hukum positivisme dan aliran Realisme Hukum menunjukkan adanya perbedaan. Kedua paradigma teori hukum tersebut dipergunakan sebagai pendahuluan dalam membahas Teori Hukum Posmodern atau disebut Critical Legal Theory, karena kedua teori di atas menunjukkan ciri-ciri Traditional Legal Theory,  khususnya dalam memandang konsep the rule of law, the meaning of law, dan the law and society. Permasalahan dalam artikel ini adalah bagaimana pandangan Critical Legal Theory tentang konsep-konsep hukum khususnya terkait dengan the rule of law, the meaning of law, dan the law and society? Apakah pernyataan sebagaimana dikemukakan Gary Saalman dapat diterima (disetujui) atau tidak? Dan apakah teori hukum posmodern memang terjadi dalam realita hukum di Indonesia?. Artikel ini menggunakan metode yuridis normatif dan perbandingan teori-teori hukum melalui pendekatan filosofis. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa dekonstruksi terhadap teori hukum lama dan dimasukkan dalam kerangka posmodern di bidang hukum kendati terkesan membabi buta dan “membabat” semua kemapanan teori hukum, namun tetap mengandung kelebihan tersendiri, karena dengan pandangan postmodernisme itu sendiri gagasan-gagasan dasar seperti filsafat, rasionalitas, dan epistimologi dipertanyakan kembali secara radikal.
IDEALISME CONSTITUENDUM MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI DALAM PENGUJIAN UNDANG-UNDANG TERHADAP UNDANG-UNDANG DASAR Benediktus Hestu Cipto Handoyo
Arena Hukum Vol. 14 No. 1 (2021)
Publisher : Arena Hukum

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.21776/ub.arenahukum.2021.01401.1

Abstract

AbstractJudicial review is one of the authorities of the Constitutional Court most often exercised. This research examines the background of the establishment of Constitutional Court in Indonesia and the ideal construction of the constituendum for the Constitutional Court in implementing the judicial review. This normative research uses regulatory and conceptual approach. The results showes first, the authority to judicial review should be placed in one institution, namely the Constitutional Court, since the continental tradion of laws and regulations is systematic, hyrarchial and pyramidal in nature. Second, the Consttutional Court’s decisions that are often ignored by the law forming institutions have resulted in the Law annulled by the Court not immediately followed up with the issuance of a replacement law. Third, judicial review should not be limited to the statute being reviewed, because the statute concerned are, more likely, related to the other statutes. And fourth, the Constitutional Court’s decisions should be regarded as constitutional jurisprudence and become  referrences for the theory of constitution in general. AbstrakSalah satu wewenang Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK) yang paling sering dilaksanakan dalam keseharian adalah Pengujian UU terhadap UUD. Penelitian ini menganalisa latar belakang kemunculan MK di Indonesia serta bagaimana konstruksi ideal Constituendum bagi MK dalam melaksanakan pengujian tersebut. Penelitian normatif ini menggunakan pendekatan perundang-undangan dan konseptual. Hasilnya pertama, pengujian peraturan perundang-undangan seharusnya diletakkan dalam satu lembaga, yakni MK sebab tradisi continental peraturan perundang-undangan bersifat sistemik hirarkhis piramidal. Kedua, putusan MK yang sering tidak diindahkan oleh lembaga pembentuk UU mengakibatkan UU yang telah dibatalkan oleh MK tidak segera ditindak lanjuti dengan penerbitan UU pengganti. Ketiga, pengujian UU terhadap UUD seharusnya tidak hanya berhenti pada pengujian terhadap UU yang dimohonkan, karena UU tersebut dapat berhubungan dengan UU lain. Keempat, putusan MK seharusnya menjadi constitutions jurispridence dan menjadi rujukan teori konstitusi pada umumnya.
Co-Authors