Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
1.288
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Notaire Jurist-Diction Jurnal Suara Hukum JAPHTN-HAN Jurnal Asosiasi Pengajar Hukum Tata Negara Hukum Administrasi Negara
Baharuddin Riqiey
Unknown Affiliation
Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences

Published : 7 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search
Journal : JAPHTN-HAN

 1 
Kewenangan Mahkamah Konstitusi Dalam Memutus Perselisihan Hasil Sengketa Pilkada Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 85/PUU-XX/2022 Baharuddin Riqiey
APHTN-HAN Vol 2 No 1 (2023): JAPHTN-HAN, January 2023
Publisher : Asosiasi Pengajar Hukum Tata Negara dan Hukum Administrasi Negara

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.55292/japhtnhan.v2i1.59

Abstract

Pembedaan antara rezim Pemilu dan Pilkada bermula dari Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 97/PUU-XI/2013, yang mana menyebabkan MK tidak berwenang untuk memeriksa dan mengadili perkara perselisihan tentang hasil tentang Pilkada. Akan tetapi selama belum terbentuknya Badan Peradilan Khusus maka MK tetap berwenang untuk memeriksa dan mengadili perkara tersebut. Dengan demikian persoalannya adalah apakah Mahkamah Konstitusi pasca Putusan MK No. 85/PUU-XX/2022 Mahkamah Konstitusi berwenang untuk memeriksa dan mengadili perkara perselisihan hasil tentang Pilkada, serta apakah perlu diatur secara terpisah mengenai kewenangan tersebut dalam UUD 1945, dan bagaimana makna Pemilu pasca Putusan MK No. 85/PUU-XX.2022. Metode yang digunakan dalam penulisan ini adalah metode normative, serta bahan hukum yang digunakan adalah bahan hukum primer dan sekunder. Hasil penelitian ini menyimpulkan bahwa pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 85/PUU-XX/2022 pembedaan kedua rezim itu tidak lagi ada, sehingga Mahkamah Konstitusi berwenang untuk memeriksa dan mengadili perkara tersebut secara permanent.
Immunity Clause in The 1945 Constitution of The Republic of Indonesia Baharuddin Riqiey; Vieta Imelda Cornelis; Duke Arie Widagdo; Rizky Bangun Wibisono
APHTN-HAN Vol 5 No 1 (2026): JAPHTN-HAN, January 2026
Publisher : Asosiasi Pengajar Hukum Tata Negara dan Hukum Administrasi Negara

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.55292/japhtnhan.v5i1.204

Abstract

Indonesia is a country with a written constitution that contains various substantive provisions governing state structure, the distribution of power, human rights, and limitations on authority. Among these provisions are norms that grant immunity to certain state institutions, commonly referred to as immunity clauses. In the Indonesian constitutional context, immunity clauses are reflected in Article 7C and Article 20A paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. These provisions grant immunity to the House of Representatives (DPR), both institutionally and individually to its members. This raises an important constitutional question as to whether the existence of such immunity clauses is compatible with the principle of equality before the law. This study employs doctrinal legal research using statutory, conceptual, and historical approaches. The findings demonstrate that Article 7C constitutes a logical consequence of Indonesia’s presidential system, under which the President is constitutionally prohibited from dissolving the DPR. Furthermore, the immunity granted under Article 7C and Article 20A paragraph (3) does not contradict the principle of equality before the law, as such immunity is not absolute, remains subject to good faith, and does not preclude legal or ethical accountability for actions taken outside constitutional authority.
Co-Authors Ahmad Rizal Roby Ananta Duke Arie Widagdo ISTIKHOMAH Rizky Bangun Wibisono Sembiring, Rinawati Sultoni Fikri Syofyan hadi Vieta Imelda Cornelis