Garuda - Garba Rujukan Digital

All

Jurnal Konstitusi

jk
Website

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

36 37 38 39 40

Pancasila sebagai Sumber Hukum dalam Sistem Hukum Nasional Fais Yonas Bo’a
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol 15, No 1 (2018)
Publisher : The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia

Pancasila sebagai sumber segala sumber hukum sudah mendapatkan legitimasi secara yuridis melalui TAP MPR Nomor XX/MPRS/1966 tentang Memorandum DPR-GR Mengenai Sumber Tertib Hukum Republik Indonesia dan Tata Urutan Peraturan Perundang Republik Indonesia. Setelah reformasi, keberadaan Pancasila tersebut kembali dikukuhkan dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 10 Tahun 2004 yang kemudian diganti dengan Undang-Undang Nomor 12 Tahun 2011 tentang Peraturan Perundang-Undangan. Pancasila sebagai sumber segala sumber hukum memberi makna bahwa sistem hukum nasional wajib berlandaskan Pancasila. Akan tetapi, keberadaan Pancasila tersebut semakin tergerus dalam sistem hukum nasional. Hal demikian dilatarbelakangi oleh tiga alasan yaitu: pertama, adanya sikap resistensi terhadap Orde Baru yang memanfaatkan Pancasila demi kelanggengan kekuasaan yang bersifat otoriter. Kedua, menguatnya pluralisme hukum yang mengakibatkan terjadinya kontradiksi-kontradiksi atau disharmonisasi hukum. Ketiga, status Pancasila tersebut hanya dijadikan simbol dalam hukum. Untuk itu, perlu dilakukan upaya-upaya untuk menerapkan Pancasila sebagai sumber segala sumber hukum dalam sistem hukum nasional yaitu: pertama, menjadikan Pancasila sebagai suatu aliran hukum agar tidak terjadi lagi disharmonisasi hukum akibat diterapkannya pluralisme hukum. Kedua, mendudukkan Pancasila sebagai puncak peraturan perundang-undangan agar Pancasila memiliki daya mengikat terhadap segala jenis peraturan perundang-undangan sehingga tidak melanggar asas lex superiori derogat legi inferiori.Pancasila as the source of all sources of law has obtained legitimacy legally through the Decree of the People’s Consultative Assembly Number XX / MPRS / 1966 on the Memorandum of the House of Representatives-Gotong Royong Regarding the Sources of Law and the Order of the Republic of Indonesia. After the reformation, the existence of Pancasila was re-confirmed in Law Number 10 Year 2004 which was subsequently replaced by Law Number 12 Year 2011 on Legislation Regulation. Pancasila as the source of all sources of law gives meaning that the national legal system must be based on Pancasila. However, now the existence of Pancasila is increasingly eroded in the national legal system. This is motivated by three reasons: first, the existence of resistance to the New Order that utilizes Pancasila for the sake of perpetuity of authoritarian power. Second, the strengthening of legal pluralism that resulted in legal contradictions or disharmony. Third, the status of Pancasila is only used as a symbol in law. Therefore, efforts should be made to implement Pancasila as the source of all sources of law in the national legal system: first, make Pancasila as a flow of law in order to avoid legal disharmonization due to the application of legal pluralism. Secondly, Pretend Pancasila as the top of legislation so that Pancasila have binding power against all kinds of laws and regulations so that it does not violate the principle of lex superiori derogat legi inferiori.

Implementasi Tax on Food dalam Tanggung Jawab Negara Terhadap Hak Pangan Berdasarkan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi 39/PUU-XIV/2016 Intan Permata Putri; Rima Yuwana Yustikaningrum; Ananthia Ayu Devitasari
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol. 18 No. 2 (2021)
Publisher : Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia, Indonesia

After the Constitutional Court decision number 39/PUU-XIV/2016 concerning the Judicial Review of the Value Added Tax on Goods and Services and Sales Tax on Luxury Goods with problems related to the criteria for 11 types of food commodities not subject to Value Added Tax (VAT). However, in the a quo decision, the court expanded the meaning of 11 food commodities so that not only 11 commodities were not subject to VAT. This decision is important because it laid the foundation for guaranteeing the right to food which is the responsibility of the state. The problem is how Constitutional Court decision No. 39/PUU-XIV/2016 is implemented on the application of VAT on food commodities? How is the application of taxes on food commodities in various countries? This article is normative legal research using a conceptual approach and a comparative approach. The reference used in this article include decisions, books, journals, reports, and other references related to the issue of the right to food and the imposition of VAT on food commodities. This article concludes that first, after the Constitutional Court Decision, the Government issued the Minister of Finance Regulation No. 99/PMK.010/2020 which adds to the criteria for necessities to be 14 items. However, these criteria must constantly be evaluated and updated according to the dynamics of social, economic, nutritional, ecological, and other supporting variables; second, the tax imposed on food (tax on food) has been applied to several countries such as Denmark; Finland; Hungary; France. The amount of food that is subject to tax is of several types, such as alcohol, tobacco, foods high in sugar, salt, and saturated fat. The goal is to develop a healthy lifestyle in the community. However, none of the countries that have implemented a tax on food have included basic commodities as tax objects. The application of staples as goods subject to VAT is of course not in line with the constitution and the concept of tax on food that has existed so far.

Analisis Kritis terhadap Perjanjian Perkawinan dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 69/PUU-XIII/2015 Frassminggi Kamasa
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol 14, No 4 (2017)
Publisher : The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia

Pengujian terhadap beberapa ketentuan dalam Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 5 Tahun 1960 tentang Peraturan Dasar Pokok-Pokok Agraria dan Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 1 Tahun 1974 tentang Perkawinan ditujukan untuk memastikan agar warga negara Indonesia yang menikah dengan warga negara asing bisa tetap memiliki hak atas tanah dengan titel Hak Milik maupun Hak Guna Bangunan. Hasil akhirnya, Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia, melalui Putusan No. 69/PUU-XIII/2015, menolak sebagian permohonan yang diajukan dan memberikan tafsir sehubungan dengan perjanjian perkawinan, sehingga perjanjian perkawinan juga bisa dibuat selama dalam ikatan perkawinan. Namun demikian, terdapat masalah nyata dalam Pertimbangan Hukum yang disusun, yaitu falasi, kurangnya pertimbangan dan tidak adanya analisis dampak. Di sisi lain, penilaian yang dilakukan secara terpisah oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi terhadap objek yang diujikan menyebabkan tidak tampaknya perdebatan komprehensif mengenai isu pokok yang diujikan. Terlepas dari kekurangan tersebut, tak dapat pula disangkal bahwa Putusan No. 69/PUU-XIII/2015 memberikan alternatif jalan keluar.Review on some provisions in Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5 of 1960 concerning Basic Regulations on Agrarian Principles as well as Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 1 of 1974 concerning Marriage were submitted in order to ensure that Indonesian citizen who marries foreign citizen could still hold land right with title of the Right of Ownership and the Right of Building. As a result, Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia, through Decision No. 69/PUUXIII/2015, rejected part of the petition and provided interpretation in relation to marital agreement, so that marital agreement could be drafted during the marriage relation. Nevertheless, there are visible problems in the Legal Consideration, namely fallacy, lack of consideration and no impact analysis. On the other hand, assessment conducted separately by Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia caused the invisibility of comprehensive debate on the main issue that is contested. Apart from the said shortcomings, it is undeniable that Decision No. 69/PUU-XIII/2015 provided alternative way out.

Inkonstitusionalitas Sistem Unbundling dalam Usaha Penyediaan Listrik Jefri Porkonanta Tarigan
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol 15, No 1 (2018)
Publisher : The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia

Fungsi negara tidak hanya sebagai regulator (pengatur) dan umpire (wasit), namun juga berfungsi sebagai provider (penyedia) dan entrepreneur (pengusaha). Oleh karena itu, sudah seharusnya negara terlibat langsung dalam usaha penyediaan listrik untuk kepentingan umum bagi sebesar-besarnya kemakmuran rakyat sebagaimana amanat Pasal 33 UUD 1945. Usaha penyediaan listrik untuk kepentingan umum dengan unbundling system yaitu terpisahnya antara usaha pembangkitan, transmisi, distribusi, dan penjualan listrik, telah dinyatakan inkonstitusional oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam Putusan Nomor 001-021-022/PUU-I/2003, bertanggal 15 Desember 2004. Namun kemudian adanya putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 149/PUU-VII/2009, bertanggal 30 Desember 2010, justru dipandang sebagai peluang dibolehkannya kembali sistem unbundling dalam usaha penyediaan listrik sebagaimana ketentuan Pasal 10 ayat (2) Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2009 tentang Ketenagalistirkan. Hal tersebut kemudian mendorong diajukannya kembali permohonan pengujian terhadap ketentuan Pasal 10 ayat (2) Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2009. Melalui Putusan Nomor 111/PUU-XIII/2015, bertanggal 14 Desember 2016, Mahkamah Konstitusi pun menegaskan bahwa unbundling dalam usaha penyediaan tenaga listrik adalah tidak sesuai dengan konstitusi.The function of the state is not only as a regulator and referee, but also serves as provider and entrepreneur. Therefore, the state should be directly involved in the business of electric providing for the public interest to the greatest prosperity of the people as mandated by Article 33 of the 1945 Constitution. The unbundling system in electric providing for the public interest is the separation between the business of generation, transmission, distribution, and sales. The unbundling system has been declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court in Decision Number 001-021-022/PUU-I/2003 dated December 15, 2004. However, the decision of the Constitutional Court Number 149/PUU-VII/2009 dated 30 December 2010, is judged as an opportunity to re-enable the unbundling system in the business of electric providing as stipulated in Article 10 paragraph (2) of Law Number 30 Year 2009 about Electricity. It then encourages the re-submission of the petition for judicial review of the provisions of Article 10 paragraph (2) of Law Number 30 Year 2009. Then, through Decision Number 111/PUU-XIII/2015, dated December 14, 2016, the Constitutional Court confirm that unbundling in the business of providing power electricity for public interest is inconstitutional.

Respons Konstitusional Larangan Calon Anggota Dewan Perwakilan Daerah sebagai Pengurus Partai Politik Pan Mohamad Faiz; Muhammad Reza Winata
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol 16, No 3 (2019)
Publisher : The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia

Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK) Nomor 30/PUU-XVI/2018 bertanggal 23 Juli 2018 menjadi salah satu putusan penting bagi desain lembaga perwakilan di Indonesia. Dalam Putusan tersebut, MK menyatakan bahwa pengurus partai politik dilarang menjadi calon anggota Dewan Perwakilan Daerah. Namun, tindak lanjut dari Putusan ini memicu polemik ketatanegaraan. Sebab, terjadi kontradiksi mengenai waktu pemberlakuan larangan tersebut akibat adanya perbedaan pemaknaan terhadap Putusan MK di dalam Putusan MA, PTUN, dan Bawaslu. MK menyatakan bahwa Putusannya berlaku sejak Pemilu 2019. Akan tetapi, Putusan MA, PTUN, dan Bawaslu tersebut menyatakan larangan tersebut berlaku setelah Pemilu 2019. Artikel ini mengkaji kontradiksi Putusan-Putusan tersebut dengan menggunakan tiga pisau analisis, yaitu: (1) finalitas putusan; (2) respons terhadap putusan; dan (3) validitas atau keberlakuan norma. Dengan menggunakan doktrin responsivitas terhadap putusan pengadilan dari Tom Ginsburg, artikel ini menyimpulkan bahwa Keputusan KPU yang tetap kukuh memberlakukan larangan bagi pengurus partai politik sebagai calon anggota DPD sejak Pemilu tahun 2019 sesungguhnya merupakan tindakan formal konstitusional karena telah mengikuti (comply) penafsiran konstitusional yang terkandung dalam Putusan MK. Di lain sisi, tindakan KPU juga merupakan bentuk yang sekaligus mengesampingkan (overrule) Putusan MA, PTUN, dan Bawaslu. Meskipun demikian, respons KPU tersebut dapat dibenarkan karena Putusan MK memiliki objek dan dasar pengujian lebih tinggi dalam hierarki peraturan perundang-undangan, sehingga memiliki validitas hukum lebih tinggi dari Putusan MA, PTUN, dan Bawaslu. Dengan demikian, tindakan KPU yang konsisten mengikuti Putusan MK tersebut merupakan respons konstitusional yang memiliki justifikasi hukum dan konstitusi, sebagaimana juga dikuatkan oleh Dewan Kehormatan Penyelenggara Pemilu (DKPP), baik secara hukum maupun etik.The Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 30/PUU-XVI/2018 on 23 July 2018 is one of the important decisions concerning the constitutional design of parliament in Indonesia. The Constitutional Court decided that political party officials and functionaries are banned from running as the Regional Representative Council candidates. Nonetheless, the implementation of the decision has triggered a political polemic because there is a contradiction concerning the timing of the prohibition due to different interpretations towards the Constitutional Court Decision in the Supreme Court Decision Number 64/P/HUM/2018, the Administrative Court Decision Number 242/G/SPPU/2018/PTUN-JKT and the Election Supervisory Body Decision Number 008/LP/PL/ADM/RI/00/XII/2018. The Constitutional Court explicitly stated that its decision must be implemented since the 2019 General Election. However, the Supreme Court Decision, the Administrative Court Decision, and the Election Supervisory Body Decision decided that the prohibition shall be applied after the 2019 General Election. This article examines the contradictions between those decisions using three different approaches, namely: (1) finality of decision; (2) response to decision; and (3) validity or the applicability of norms. Based on the responsivity doctrine to the court decisions introduced by Tom Ginsburg, this article concludes that the General Election Commission decision that strongly holds its standing to ban political party officials and functionaries from running as the Regional Representative Council candidates since the 2019 General Election is a formally constitutional decision because it has complied with the constitutional interpretation contained in the Constitutional Court Decision. On the other hand, the General Election Commission decision has also overruled the Supreme Court Decision, the Administrative Court Decision, and the Election Supervisory Body Decision. Nevertheless, the General Election Commission’s response is appropriate because the Constitutional Court Decision has an object and a constitutional ground of judicial review that are higher in the hierarchy of laws and regulations in Indonesia. Therefore, the validity and the legal effect of the Constitutional Court Decision are also higher compared to the Supreme Court Decision, the Administrative Court Decision, or the Election Supervisory Body Decision. Thus, the General Election Commission decision that consistently complied with the Constitutional Court decision is a constitutional response that can be justified.

Analisis Konstitusionalitas Batasan Kewenangan Presiden dalam Penetapan Peraturan Pemerintah Pengganti Undang-Undang Sakirman Sakirman
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol 17, No 3 (2020)
Publisher : The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia

This paper is directed to notice about the limits of authority formation Government Regulation in Lieu of Act (PERPU) as outlined in Article 22 of the Indonesia Constitution 1945 as the excesses of the state that are considered critical and pushy or in legal terminology often referred to as matters of urgency to force. Nevertheless, the existence of Article 22 Indonesia Constitution 1945 as the legal basis of the authority of the President in the form Government Regulation in Lieu of Act (PERPU) not provide any legal certainty regarding presidential authority limits in the PERPU formation. The nature of subjectivity strengthened in the President becomes a problem and the pros and cons in any talks regarding the formation of this Government Regulation in Lieu of Act (PERPU) by using the methodology of normative legal research and the study of literature and used conseptional approach. On conclusion that there are three (3) main principal requirement Government Regulation in Lieu of Act (PERPU) their formation performed by the President based on the provisions of Article 22 of the 1945 Constitution and the law analisan results in this paper. These three things first is the limitation of time (when) a Government Regulation in Lieu of Act (PERPU) which by Maria Farida is limited (temporary) and limits the material (substance) were interpreted in the Constitutional Court Decision Number 138 / PUU-VII / 2009 as well as limits to the protection of the constitutional rights of the people.

Penguatan Dewan Etik dalam Menjaga Keluhuran Martabat Hakim Konstitusi Wiryanto Wiryanto
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol 13, No 4 (2016)
Publisher : The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia

The Birth of the Board of Ethics of the Constitutional Judges cannot be separated from the effort to uphold a code of ethics and maintain of the dignity of the constitutional judges. Abuse of authority in the judiciary has led to the destruction of the legal system and the non-fulfillment of a sense of justice. Judicial mafias has destroyed the foundation of the authority of the judiciary and undermine the honor and dignity of judges, therefore it is necessary to take concrete measures to restore the authority of the judiciary and maintaining the honor of judges as the main pillars of the judiciary in enforcing law and justice. One concrete step is the need for strengthening the supervisory system of ethics against constitutional judges, the results of which will provide input to the Constitutional Court, whether the monitoring system of ethics against constitutional judges applied so far has been able to maintain the honor, dignity, and constitutional justices, and whether the system has provided legal certainty in its enforcement against violations of the Code of Ethics and Conduct of Constitutional Judges. Strengthening the role of the board of ethics of constitutional judges as guardians of constitutional judges dignity can be constantly improved by opening access to complaints from the public against allegations of ethical violations committed by constitutional judges.

Prinsip Proporsionalitas dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi (Studi Perbandingan di Indonesia dan Jerman) Irene Angelita Rugian
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol. 18 No. 2 (2021)
Publisher : Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia, Indonesia

The judicial review of UUD 1945 is the authority of the Constitutional Court declared by Article 24C UUD NRI 1945. One of the reasons for judicial review is competiting rights or the constitutional rights of citizens who have been violated through existing laws, so there needs to be an examination of the law these laws. It is also known that some of the judges’ decisions in competiting rights cases only use the interpretation of the constitution without considering the impairment of rights delivered by the applicant in the examination. Thus resulting in a decision stating that the law does not conflict with the constitution. This hurts citizens who feel their rights have been violated. A balance is needed between the public interest and the constitutional rights of citizens. The counterweight can use the principle of proportionality. The principle of proportionality is needed by the constitutional judge in his consideration when faced with a case of competiting rights. But unfortunately, this principle is not always used when faced with competiting rights, and the principle was not developed by Constitutional Court judges. In this paper the problem to be answered is first the history of the principle of proportionality, secondly the comparison of the use of the principle of proportionality in constitutional justice in Germany and Indonesia. The problem was answered using normative legal research methods. The main material is the decision of the Constitutional Court and supporting materials in the form of books and journals. The conclusion in this paper is the need to use the principle of proportionality in dealing with competiting rights cases in the Constitutional Court. So it is necessary to immediately develop the principle of proportionality and its parameters.

Arti Penting Surat Pemberitahuan Dimulainya Penyidikan: Kajian Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 130/PUU-XIII/2015 Hwian Christianto
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol 16, No 1 (2019)
Publisher : The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia

Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 130/PUU-XIII/2015 tidak hanya sekedar memberikan perubahan kepada rumusan Pasal 109 ayat (1) KUHAP akan tetapi penekanan konsep hukum acara pidana yang berlaku. Keberadaan Putusan membawa problematika tersendiri dalam hukum acara pidana Indonesia yang berlaku selama ini sehingga kajian terhadap Surat Pemberitahuan Dimulainya Penyidikan (SPDP) penting dilakukan berdasarkan asas hukum acara pidana dan jaminan hak asasi manusia. Metode penelitian yuridis normatif menganalisis pertimbangan Mahkamah Konstitusi menurut asas hukum acara pidana, ketentuan hukum yang berlaku dan instumen hukum internsional dan nasional terkait hak asasi manusia. Hasil analisis yang diperoleh antara lain pertama, keharusan pemberitahuan SPDP kepada tersangka, korban, dan penuntut umum menunjukkan adanya pergeseran konsep Crime Control Model ke konsep Due Process Model sekaligus sebuah terobosan hukum yang didasarkan pada tujuh asas hukum acara pidana yang berlaku. Mahkamah Konstitusi menunjukkan konsistensi sistem acara pidana yang mengedepankan prinsip diferensiasi fungsional antara penyidik dan penuntut umum sebagai integrated criminal justice system; kedua Pemahaman akan arti penting penyampaian SPDP juga memenuhi hak asasi manusia yang dimiliki oleh tersangka, korban dan Negara.The Decision of Constitutional Court Number 130/PUU-XIII/2015 did not only change the formula of Article 109 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code, but also the focus of the legal concept of the law in order. The existence of the decision has brought problems in the Criminal Code in effect, so the analysis of the Notification Letter of the Commencement of Investigation is important based on the legal base of the Criminal Code and the guarantee of human rights. A normative juridical method was used in analyzing the consideration of the Constitutional Court according to the Criminal Code, the provisions which were in effect and international and national legal instruments related to the human rights. The result of the analysis showed that, first, SPDP must be issued to the suspect, victim, and the prosecutor to show the movement of the concept of crime control model to the concept of due process model as well as a legal breakthrough based on the seven bases of the Criminal Code in effect. The Constitutional Court showed the consistency in the system of crime which put forward the principal of functional differentiation between the investigator and the prosecutor as the integrated criminal justice system; secondly, the understanding of the important meaning of issuing SPDP also fulfilled human rights of the suspect, the victim, and the country.

Dekonstruksi Kewenangan Investigatif dalam Pelanggaran Hak Asasi Manusia yang Berat Nurrahman Aji Utomo
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol 16, No 4 (2019)
Publisher : The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia

Relasi fungsi Komnas HAM sebagai penyelidik dan Jaksa Agung sebagai penyidik, menyisakan ruang pedebatan yang menyandera penyelesaian pelanggaran HAM yang berat. Bersamaan dengan itu Putusan MK No.75/PUU-XII/2015 yang menguji frasa “kurang lengkap..” Pasal 20 (3) UU Pengadilan HAM, menegaskan bahwa bolak balik berkas, merupakan implikasi dari masalah dalam penerapan norma dalam praktik. Sedangkan konsekuensi dari frasa tersebut menyasar pada lingkup pemeriksaan bukti dan peristiwa. Kajian ini berupaya mengurai praktik penyelidikan dan penyidikan pelanggaran HAM, dengan menganalisis relasi antara kedua kewenangan tersebut. Pendekatan peraturan perundang-undangan, pendekatan konseptual, menjadi lingkup analisis yang membantu untuk menjawab isu hukum. Kajian ini menemukan bahwa penggunaan frasa dan penafsirannya melahirkan friksi dalam penerapan norma. Untuk mengurai hal tersebut dilakukan dengan memetakan praktik dari bolak balik berkas. Perbedaan penafsiran ditemukan pada melebarnya hasil penyelidikan hingga penuntutan, yang berujung pada perbedaan klasifikasi jenis pidana. Temuan berupa ketidaksesuaian penerapan norma, merupakan konsekuensi dari praktik model hierarki dihadapkan pada otoritas kewenangan yang terpisah. Alhasil bentuk prosedur yang dipertanyakan, berkutat pada prosedur yang ada tanpa melihat karakter khusus dari situasi, peristiwa, kejahatan. Berlanjut dari itu anomali dalam praktik menjadikan penggunaan model hierarki dan model koordinasi dalam investigasi mengaburkan proses penyelesaian pelanggaran HAM yang berat. Berkaca pada proses di ICC terdapat beberapa hal yang bisa diambil untuk memperkaya wacana proses penyelesaian pelanggaran HAM yang berat.The relation between the functions investigation of the National Human Rights Commission and the Attorney General leaves a space for debate that holds hostage to completion of gross human rights violations. At the same time, the Constitutional Court Decision No. 75/PUU-XII/2015 which examines the phrase "incomplete..." Article 20 (3) of the Law on Human Rights Courts, emphasizes that back and forth files are the implications of problems in applying norms in practice. While the consequences of these phrases target the scope of proofs and event examinations. This study seeks to unravel the practice of investigating human rights violations by analyzing the relations between the two authorities. Legislative approaches, conceptual approaches, historical approaches are the scope of analysis which helps to address legal issues. This study found that the use of phrases and their interpretations gave birth to friction in the application of norms. To parse this, it is done by mapping the practice of back and forth files. Differences in interpretation were found in the widening of the results of investigations to prosecution, which led to differences in the classification of criminal types. The findings in the form of incompatibility of norms are a consequence of the practice of hierarchical models faced with separate authority. As a result, the form of procedure is questioned, dwelling on existing procedures without seeing the special character of the situations, events, and the crimes. Continuing from that, anomalies in practice make the use of hierarchical models and coordination models in investigations obscure the process of resolving gross human rights violations. Reflecting on the process at the ICC, there are several things that can be taken to enrich the discourse on the process of completion gross human rights violations.

Page 38 of 59 | Total Record : 584

36 37 38 39 40

Filter by Year

2015 2024

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

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

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

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

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

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