Garuda - Garba Rujukan Digital

Bisariyadi Bisariyadi, Bisariyadi

Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia Jl. Medan Merdeka Barat No. 6, Jakarta Pusat, 10110

Author-ID : 618764

Humanities Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences Other

Published : 8 Documents Claim Missing Document

Claim Missing Document

Articles

Title

1

Yudisialisasi Politik dan Sikap Menahan Diri: Peran Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam Menguji Undang-Undang Bisariyadi, Bisariyadi
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol 12, No 3 (2015)
Publisher : Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia

In a review of the constitutionality of law or policy, the Constitutional Court can take an aggressive approach or choose to take self-restraint. Theoretical justification on the Court to change or made policy derived from the judicialization of politics. Global phenomenon indicates the shift of policy-making authority towards the judiciary. Consequently, policy makers shows resistence. Such conditions forced the Court to use a number of strategies to reduce political tensions between state institutions while at the same time the Court still protect the rights of citizens. The Court uses self-restraint approach to examine policies which in realm of legislative or executive discretion. This approach is referred to by the Court as an “open(ed) legal policy”. This study elaborates on the actions carried out by the Indonesian Constitutional Court to test the constitutionality of law or policy, both in the application of the judicialization of politics nor in the judicial restraint approach. In reality, the Court uses both of these approaches on review the constitutionality of law and policy.

Komparasi Mekanisme Penyelesaian Sengketa Pemilu di Beberapa Negara Penganut Paham Demokrasi Konstitusional Bisariyadi, Bisariyadi; Triningsih, Anna; Rahmawaty H, Meyrinda; Harumdani W, Alia
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol 9, No 3 (2012)
Publisher : Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia

Every country in the world, moreover in every country which has implemented the way of life of democcratic and nation, presume that election is one of the important element as a marker of democracy of the country and also has a practical function of government political as a succession’s tool between the government parties and the oposition parties. In every democratic constitutional state, the election process has a purpose to embody will of the people into pattern of power without violence.The election process will not only be assessed by sticking to the existing legal framework but the laws, codes of conduct of the election and its implementation needs to be tested and adjusted if it is in accordance with its primary purpose or not without ignoring the rights of individuals or people. In the process of the general election, the election process does not always run smoothly. Various obstacles in the implementation of good elections that occurred both during and previous election, is a problem that certainly would have widely spread impact if not immediately resolved. The existence of problems in the election related to dissatisfaction of decision of the election or criminal violations and administrative which can influence the result of election is commonly known by electoral disputes. In order the election dispute does not disturb the constitutional system or system of government of a country or region, it requires an electoral dispute resolution mechanisms that effective and can give a fair decision to the parties.The main problem is how the benchmark of an electoral dispute resolution mechanisms that are effective? Because, if traced further and reflect on democracies country in the world, not all democracies country, especially the democracies country which basing on the supremacy of the constitution, has the same electoral dispute resolution mechanisms between one country to another country. This is very important, because by knowing the measure or the benchmark of the effectiveness of an electoral dispute resolution mechanisms, we can consider to choose which electoral dispute resolution mechanisms that appropriate and give the fairness to the parties and society in general.

Membedah Doktrin Kerugian Konstitusional Bisariyadi, Bisariyadi
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol 14, No 1 (2017)
Publisher : Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia

Penetapan ukuran kerugian konstitusional memiliki kedudukan strategis sebagai pintu gerbang atas pengujian norma yang hendak diuji. Mahkamah Konstitusi merumuskan syarat kerugian konstitusional berdasarkan penafsiran Pasal 51 ayat (1) Undang-Undang Mahkamah Konstitusi. Doktrin kerugian konstitusional terdiri dari lima syarat yang dapat diklasifikasikan dalam dua kelompok. Kelompok pertama berisikan unsur-unsur yang harus dipenuhi pemohon terdiri dari (i) adanya hak dan/atau kewenangan konstitusional dan (ii) ada kerugian. Kelompok kedua merupakan prosedur pengujian mengenai ukuran kerugian yang diderita pemohon yang didalamnya yang terdiri dari (i) bentuk kerugian, (ii) hubungan kausalitas dan (iii) pemulihan kerugian. Kelima syarat ini bersifat kumulatif. Dalam penerapannya, doktrin kerugian konstitusional ini sangatlah dinamis. Ada kecenderungan bahwa doktrin ini menyimpan permasalahan. Tulisan ini berupaya mengidentifikasi masalah yang ada dalam penerapan doktrin kerugian konstitusional. Salah satunya adalah tumpang tindihnya antara pembuktian hak konstitusional pemohon dalam bagian kedudukan hukum dengan pengujian norma dalam pokok perkara. Sedangkan konkretisasi pembuktian unsur kerugian berkelindan dengan pengujiannya dalam kelompok doktrin kedua. Oleh karenanya, tulisan ini berkesimpulan bahwa telah ada kebutuhan untuk melakukan penyempurnaan doktrin kerugian konstitusional dengan melakukan penafsiran ulang atas Pasal 51 ayat (1) Undang-Undang Mahkamah Konstitusi dan tidak lagi mencantumkan kelompok pertama dalam doktrin kerugian konstitusional untuk pemeriksaan pengujian Undang-Undang di masa yang akan datang.The concept of constitutional injury is a substantial pre-requisite in the examination of judicial review case. The Constitutional Court drafted the concept as an interpretation of Article 51(1) of the Law on the Constitutional Court. It consists of five conditions that can be classified into two groups. The first group contains elements that must be met by the applicant which are (i) constitutional rights and/or authorities and (ii) injuries. The second group is the test in regard to the size of the injury suffered by the applicant therein consisting of (i) forms of injury, (ii) causality and (iii) redressability. The requirement is accumulative. Yet in practice the doctrine is variedly applied. There is tendency the doctrine itself causes problems. This paper seeks to identify the problems and aimed to give solution to the problem. Two problems are identified, one is an overlap examination of constitutional rights in standing and also in ratio decidendi. Another one is that the injury element in the doctrine intertwined with its own testing in the second group of the doctrine. Therefore, this paper concludes that there is a need to revise the doctrine with reinterpretation of Article 51 (1) of the Law and recommend not to exclude the first group of the doctrine.

Title Search

Found 3 Documents Search Journal : Jurnal Konstitusi

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Title

Found 3 Documents
Search
Journal : Jurnal Konstitusi