cover
Article Per Year (5 Year)
All
Home Page
OAI Link
Editorial Team
Contact
Reviewer
Google Scholar
Contact Name
Abdul Basid Fuadi
Contact Email
jurnalkonstitusi@mkri.id
Phone
+6281215312967
Journal Mail Official
jurnalkonstitusi@mkri.id
Editorial Address
Pusat Penelitian dan Pengkajian Perkara dan Pengelolaan Perpustakaan Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia Jl. Medan Merdeka Barat No. 6, Jakarta 10110 Telp: (021) 23529000 Fax: (021) 3520177 E-mail: jurnalkonstitusi@mkri.id
Location
Kota adm. jakarta pusat,
Dki jakarta
INDONESIA
Jurnal Konstitusi
Published by Pusat Penelitian dan Pengkajian Perkara dan Pengelolaan Perpustakaan Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia
ISSN : 18297706     EISSN : 25481657     DOI : https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1841
Core Subject : Humanities, Social,
Humanities Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice
The aims of this journal is to provide a venue for academicians, researchers and practitioners for publishing the original research articles or review articles. The scope of the articles published in this journal deal with a broad range of topics in the fields of Constitutional Law and another section related contemporary issues in law.
Arjuna Subject : Ilmu Sosial - Hukum
Articles 584 Documents
 24   25   26   27   28 
Politik Hukum Putusan MK Nomor 36/PUU-X/2012 dalam Upaya Mengembalikan Kedaulatan Negara dan Perlindungan HAM Habib Shulton Asnawi
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol 13, No 2 (2016)
Publisher : The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (65.201 KB) | DOI: 10.31078/jk1324

Abstract

The background of this paper departs from concern over the fragility of the value of Indonesia's sovereignty which has an impact on the violations of the rights of Indonesian citizens (human rights). Law No. 22 of 2001 on Oil and Gas (Oil and Gas Law) has undermined the sovereignty of the state and the nation's economic sovereignty. Oil and Gas Law poses systemic impact on people's lives and could harm the country's finances. This is because oil and gas law opened liberalization of oil and gas management which is highly dominated by foreign entity since oil and gas world in Indonesia is dominated by foreign companies up to 89 percent. Therefore, in an effort to restore the sovereignty of the Republic of Indonesia in the field of oil and gas, the Constitutional Court as a State institution has taken progressive step in its decision No. 36 / PUU-X / 2012 on the dissolution of BP Migas. The legal policy of the Court decision constitute a wise choice and is a progressive step in the field of law, especially the protection of human rights of the people of Indonesia.
Tafsir Konstitusionalitas terhadap Batas Usia Pemidanaan Anak Hwian Christianto
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol 8, No 5 (2011)
Publisher : The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (447.792 KB) | DOI: 10.31078/jk855

Abstract

Child’s age limit acts is an absolute requirement which shall be notified in order to avoid him or her to be a victim. Acts No. 3, 1997 about     Court of Children  states  that 8 (eight) years old as the limit and it can   be proposed to. Of course this statement brings consequence to children growth’s rights and it is considered as a threat that he/she shall experience an hard law-process. On another hand, the decision of Supreme Court No. 1/PUU-VII/2010 answers this problem, by pulling up the application and deciding 12 years old as a new limit for the accused child. The regulation definitely brings a big change into child’s criminal law concept in Acts No. 3, 1997. The objection of law’s  application as limitation for a child    in the court also said by the applicant and considered as legality and human right trafficking.
Konstitusionalitas Perjanjian Distribusi dalam Persaingan Usaha Sehat Yati Nurhayati
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol 8, No 6 (2011)
Publisher : The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (431.907 KB) | DOI: 10.31078/jk867

Abstract

Distribution agreement that contains the agency agreement if the terms of law no.5, the year 1999 concering Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition can be categorized as a distribution agreement if the basic agreement between the parties is a purchase agreement so that he acts on his own name so that can have     the freedom to set prices of goods or services that have been bought.In practice in Indonesia,distribution agreement have a variety of different shapes and substances in accordance with the will of the parties,so that in determining whether the agreement included an agreement that made the distribution or agency agreement should be seen from the substance of the  agreement
Inkonstitusionalitas Pasal 19 Perma Nomor 2 Tahun 2016 dan Implikasinya terhadap Akses Keadilan Warga Negara Yogi Zul Fadhli
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol 13, No 4 (2016)
Publisher : The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (385.306 KB) | DOI: 10.31078/jk1341

Abstract

Judicial review as an extraordinary legal effort has constitutionally regulated by Indonesian law. However, in the administrative court, related with the dispute of location determination for the public interest, judicial review is dispensed by the Article 19 of Supreme Court Regulation No. 2 of 2016. Those article is unconstitutional because theoretically contrary with the Constitution of Indonesia and disharmonious in the types, hierarchy and substantive of the proportionality principle. Thus, human rights violation is rising especially for the people that being victims of land grabbing of development project for the public interest and disorganize of the system procedures in administrative court.
Perlindungan terhadap Lingkungan dalam Perspektif Konstitusi Pan Mohamad Faiz
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol 13, No 4 (2016)
Publisher : The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (366.079 KB) | DOI: 10.31078/jk1344

Abstract

Nowadays there is a tendency in many countries to protect the environment by incorporating general principles of environment into a state or a regional constitution. This article aims to examine the extent to which environmental protection can be provided through the adoption of those constitutional norms. This study was conducted using a qualitative methodology with a normative approach and library research derived from court decisions, law and regulations, books and journal articles. It concludes that the Indonesian Constitution contains constitutional norms for the environmental protection. However, these constitutional norms are still positioned as a subsidiary or supporting factor in the fulfillment of human rights and the national economy. In order to strengthen the environmental protection by the Indonesian Constitution, it requires a reformulation of related constitutional norms by positioning the environment more as the basic values in the state administration and national economic activities.
Hak Kebebasan Berserikat Bagi Pekerja Sebagai Hak Konstitusional Abdul Rachmad Budiono
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol 13, No 4 (2016)
Publisher : The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (307.238 KB) | DOI: 10.31078/jk1345

Abstract

Article 28E paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia guarantees the right of everyone to freedom of association, assembly, and to express opinions. Thus, the right of workers or labours to freedom of association is guaranteed by the Constitution. The principle which is embedded in the 1945 Constitution has been incorporated into Law Number 21 Year 2000 concerning Labour Union. The substance of the rights to freedom of association aims to give bargaining power to workers represented by the union against employers. The bargaining position of labour unions is expected to improve the functioning of the unions to defend the interest of workers.
Urgensi Pengaturan Kewarganegaraan Ganda Bagi Diaspora Indonesia May Lim Charity
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol 13, No 4 (2016)
Publisher : The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (347.342 KB) | DOI: 10.31078/jk1346

Abstract

The need for dual citizenship regulation seems increasingly prominent and becomes an issue that continues to be striven by the Indonesian Diasporas in various countries around the globe. Dual citizenship has become the dream of the Indonesian Diasporas in various countries since many Indonesian citizen Diasporas with a single citizenship often encounter various obstacles and limitations. The Indonesian citizenship law is today based on the principle of single citizenship. This principle has been even adhered since the proclamation of August 17 1945, under the enactment of Law Number 3 of 1946 on Citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, which was later replaced by Law Number 62 of 1958 on Citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia and amended by Act Number 12 of 2006 on Citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government Regulation Number 2 of 2007 on Procedures for acquisition, loss, deprivation, and reacquisition of Citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia. Nowadays, the demands for the implementation of unlimited dual citizenship are under the considerations for the Government and the House of Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia to amend Act Number 12 of 2006. It is not only for the demands of the Indonesia diaspora to the implementation of unlimited dual citizenship, but it is also for the reality of the development of globalization today. The implementation of dual citizenship for Indonesian diaspora is a necessity. In addition, it is based on the reality of globalization and the spirit of the constitution that protects all the entire homeland of Indonesia, including Indonesian citizens residing abroad.
Desain Badan Peradilan Khusus Pemilihan Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 97/PUU-XI/2013 Supriyadi Supriyadi; Aminuddin Kasim
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol 17, No 3 (2020)
Publisher : The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (73.912 KB) | DOI: 10.31078/jk17310

Abstract

The Constitutional Court Decision Number 97 / PUU-XI / 2013 is a constitutional affirmation of the Court to relinquish its authority to resolve disputes over the results of regional head and deputy regional head elections. Given that conceptually the elections for regional heads and deputy regional heads are not included in the general election regime. After the decision of the Constitutional Court was issued Law Number 1 of 2015 as amended several times, most recently by Law Number 6 of 2020 which explicitly regulates and mandates the establishment of a special judicial body to handle disputes over election results. Neither the Constitutional Court decisions nor the Laws explain in detail the design of a special court that deals with disputes over election results. Therefore, this paper intends to answer research questions about; first, if the Constitutional Court has put the authority to resolve the election result dispute, what is the direction of the Constitutional Court’s thought in designing the settlement of the election result dispute based on decision Number 97/PUU-XI/2013? Second, the Constitutional Court Decision has been enumerated into the Election Law, is it in line with the Constitutional Court’s thoughts in the decision Number 97/PUU-XI/2013 with the normalization in the Election Law regarding disputes over results? third, how is the design of a special judicial body in line with the decision Number 97/PUU-XI/2013 and the Election Law? The research method used in this research is normative research with a statutory approach, conceptual approach, and case approach, with sources of literature law and prescriptive analysis techniques. The findings of this study are; First, the Decidendi Ratio of the Constitutional Court decision Number 97/ PUU-XI/2013 seems to implicitly place the authority to resolve disputes over the results of the elections as part of the authority of the Supreme Court. Second, the normalization of the Pilkada Law related to the settlement of election result disputes is in line with the Constitutional Court’s decision. Third, the design of a special electoral judiciary body is formed under the Supreme Court.
Konstitusionalitas Perppu Nomor 2 Tahun 2017 tentang Ormas Ditinjau dari UUD 1945 M. Beni Kurniawan
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol 15, No 3 (2018)
Publisher : The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (385.625 KB) | DOI: 10.31078/jk1531

Abstract

Penelitian ini mengkaji permasalahan, pertama: pengaturan dan mekanisme pembubaran Ormas dalam peraturan perundang-undangan di Indonesia. Kedua, konstitutionalitas Pasal 61 dan 62 Perppu Nomor 2 Tahun 2017 yang mengatur tentang Pembubaran Ormas ditinjau dari UUD 1945 dan Konsep Negara Hukum. Pasal 61 dan 62 Perppu Nomor 2 Tahun 2017 memberikan wewenang kepada Pemerintah untuk membubarkan Ormas secara sepihak tanpa adanya due process of law terlebih dahulu. Hal ini tentu bertentangan dengan konsep Negara hukum yang mengedepankan adanya pembatasan kekuasaan dan kebebasan berserikat yang dijamin dalam UUD 1945. Jenis penelitian ini adalah penelitian yuridis normatif yang bersifat perskriptif dengan maksud memberikan solusi terhadap permasalahan Ormas di Indonesia. Sebagai hasil penelitian dapat disimpulkan bahwa Pasal 61 dan 62 Perppu Nomor 2 Tahun 2017 yang memberikan kewenangan kepada pemerintah untuk membubarkan Ormas secara sepihak adalah Inkonstitutional karena bertentangan dengan Pasal 1 ayat 3 tentang Indonesia sebagai Negara Hukum dan Pasal 28E ayat 3 tentang kebebasan berserikat. Perlu adanya revisi terhadap Perppu Nomor 2 Tahun 2017 dengan tetap memberikan kewenangan kepada Badan Peradilan (MA atau MK) dalam memutuskan pembubaran Ormas. Perlu juga adanya pembatasan waktu terhadap Badan Peradilan dalam memutus perkara pembubaran Ormas untuk menghindari ketidakpastian perkara dan inefisiensi waktu.The problem in this study, first: how the arrangement and mechanism for the dissolution of social organization in Indonesia’s Laws, second: how the Constitutionality of Article 61 and 62 of Government Regulation In Lieu Of Law No. 2 of 2017 regulates the Dissolution of social organization reviewed from the 1945 Constitution and the Rule of Law’s Concept. Article 61 and 62 of Government Regulation In Lieu Of Law No. 2 of 2017 authorize the Government to dissolve social organization without any due process of law in advance. This is certainly contrary to the concept of rule of law which puts forward the existence of restrictions on power and the freedom of association guaranteed in the 1945 Constitution. This research is a normative and prescriptive in order to provide solutions to the problems of social organization in Indonesia. As a result of the researc, it can be concluded that Article 61 and 62 of Perppu No. 2 of 2017 which gives authority to the government to dissolve social organization unilaterally is inconstitutional because Contrary to the Article 1 paragraph 3 of Indonesia as a State of Law and Article 28 E paragraph 3 concerning freedom of association. Also, there needs to be a revision of Government Regulation In Lieu Of Law No. 2 of 2017 with still giving authority to the Judicial Boards (MA or MK) in deciding the social organization dissolution. It is also necessary to limit the time to the Judicial Boards in deciding cases of the dissolution of the social organization to avoid an uncertain case and an inefficient time.
Progresivitas Putusan Sengketa Kewenangan Lembaga Negara dan Pembaharuan Hukum Acara Luthfi Widagdo Eddyono
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol 16, No 1 (2019)
Publisher : The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (427.179 KB) | DOI: 10.31078/jk1617

Abstract

Berdasarkan Pasal 24C ayat (1) UUD 1945, salah satu kewenangan Mahkamah Konstitusi adalah memutus sengketa kewenangan lembaga negara yang kewenangannya diberikan oleh UUD 1945. Untuk mengatur hal-hal lebih lanjut, dibentuklah Undang-Undang Nomor 24 Tahun 2003 tentang Mahkamah Konstitusi. Akan tetapi, undang-undang tersebut masih belum menjelaskan detail hukum acara kewenangan tersebut, sehingga Mahkamah Konstitusi diberikan kewenangan untuk mengatur hal-hal yang diperlukan bagi kelancaran pelaksanaan tugas dan wewenangnya. Karenanya Peraturan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 08/PMK/2006 tentang Pedoman Beracara dalam Sengketa Kewenangan Konstitusional Lembaga Negara bertanggal, 18 Juli 2006 dibuat oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi. Akan tetapi, Peraturan itu belum juga diubah sampai sekarang padahal berbagai putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi sedikit banyak telah menentukan beberapa hal yang terkait dengan hukum formal di Mahkamah Konstitusi. Bahkan setelah adanya Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 2011 tentang Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 24 Tahun 2003 tentang Mahkamah Konstitusi, Peraturan Mahkamah Konstitusi juga belum direvisi. Tulisan ini akan memfokuskan pada analisis terhadap hukum acara perkara sengketa kewenangan lembaga negara oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi pasca beberapa putusan yang telah dihasilkan oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi dan adanya Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 2011 tentang Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 24 Tahun 2003 tentang Mahkamah Konstitusi. Rekomendasi yang dihasilkan terkait dengan kebutuhan revisi hukum acara Mahkamah Konstitusi sebagaimana termaktub dalam Peraturan Mahkamah Konstitusi seperti perlunya diatur keberadaan pihak terkait karena sengketa tersebut pada dasarnya adalah perselisihan atau perbedaan pendapat yang berkaitan dengan pelaksanaan kewenangan antara dua atau lebih lembaga negara, sehingga sengketa kewenangan lembaga negara masih memungkinkan adanya pihak terkait.Based on Article 24C paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, one of the authorities of the Constitutional Court is to decide on the authority dispute of state institutions whose authority is granted by the 1945 Constitution. To regulate further matters, Law Number 24 of 2003 concerning the Constitutional Court was established. However, the law still does not explain the details of the procedural law of the authority, so the Constitutional Court is given the power to regulate matters needed for the smooth implementation of its duties and authorities. Therefore the Constitutional Court Regulation Number 08/PMK/2006 concerning Procedure Guidelines in the Constitutional Institutional Authority Dispute dated July 18, 2006, was made by the Constitutional Court. However, the regulation has not been changed until now even though various Constitutional Court decisions have determined the number of things related to formal law in the Constitutional Court. Even after the Law Number 8 of 2011 concerning Amendments to Law Number 24 of 2003 concerning the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court Regulation has also not been revised. This paper will focus on the analysis of the procedural law on state authority dispute cases by the Constitutional Court after several decisions that have been produced by the Constitutional Court and the existence of Law Number 8 of 2011 concerning Amendments to Law Number 24 of 2003 concerning the Constitutional Court. There are recommendations that are generated related to the need for revisions to the Constitutional Court procedural law as set out in the Constitutional Court Regulations such as the need to regulate the existence of related parties because the dispute is basically a dispute or difference of opinion relating to the implementation of authority between two or more state institutions.

Page 26 of 59 | Total Record : 584

 24   25   26   27   28 

Filter by Year

2015 2024


Reset
Filter By Issues
All Issue Vol. 21 No. 4 (2024) Vol. 21 No. 3 (2024) Vol. 21 No. 2 (2024) Vol. 21 No. 1 (2024) Vol. 20 No. 4 (2023) Vol. 20 No. 3 (2023) Vol. 20 No. 2 (2023) Vol. 20 No. 1 (2023) Vol. 19 No. 4 (2022) Vol. 19 No. 3 (2022) Vol. 19 No. 2 (2022) Vol. 19 No. 1 (2022) Vol. 18 No. 4 (2021) Vol. 18 No. 3 (2021) Vol. 18 No. 2 (2021) Vol. 18 No. 1 (2021) Vol 17, No 4 (2020) Vol. 17 No. 4 (2020) Vol 17, No 3 (2020) Vol. 17 No. 2 (2020) Vol 17, No 2 (2020) Vol 17, No 1 (2020) Vol 16, No 4 (2019) Vol. 16 No. 4 (2019) Vol. 16 No. 3 (2019) Vol 16, No 3 (2019) Vol 16, No 2 (2019) Vol 16, No 1 (2019) Vol 15, No 4 (2018) Vol. 15 No. 4 (2018) Vol 15, No 3 (2018) Vol 15, No 2 (2018) Vol 15, No 1 (2018) Vol 14, No 4 (2017) Vol 14, No 3 (2017) Vol 14, No 2 (2017) Vol. 14 No. 1 (2017) Vol 14, No 1 (2017) Vol 13, No 4 (2016) Vol 13, No 3 (2016) Vol. 13 No. 2 (2016) Vol 13, No 2 (2016) Vol 13, No 1 (2016) Vol 11, No 4 (2014) Vol 11, No 3 (2014) Vol 11, No 2 (2014) Vol 11, No 1 (2014) Vol 10, No 4 (2013) Vol 10, No 3 (2013) Vol 10, No 2 (2013) Vol 10, No 1 (2013) Vol 9, No 4 (2012) Vol 9, No 3 (2012) Vol 9, No 2 (2012) Vol 9, No 1 (2012) Vol 8, No 6 (2011) Vol 8, No 5 (2011) Vol 8, No 4 (2011) Vol 8, No 3 (2011) Vol 8, No 2 (2011) Vol 8, No 1 (2011) Vol 7, No 6 (2010) Vol 7, No 5 (2010) Vol 7, No 4 (2010) Vol 7, No 3 (2010) Vol 7, No 2 (2010) Vol 7, No 1 (2010) Vol 12, No 4 (2015) Vol 12, No 3 (2015) Vol 12, No 2 (2015) Vol 12, No 1 (2015) More Issue