Disharmoni Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi dan Mahkamah Agung Bagi Calon Anggota DPD RI
Abstract
Legal inconsistency arises from the disparities between the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court's interpretations over what qualifies a candidate for admission in the DPD RI who isn't even a political party administrator. The pros and cons of the Constitutional Court's and the Supreme Court's decisions are flaws in the obligations and functions of governmental institutions and stimulate legal debate. An analytical approach to judicial power based on decisions made by judges of the Constitutional Court and Supreme Court in accordance with the Law on Justice is the approach applied in this study. According to the study's findings, the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court, which are state institutions that issue legal judgments on laws and regulations, are responsible for the dualism of decisions that sometimes occurs in a single case. In order to obtain harmonious relationship for the purpose of justice and legal certainty for the people of the future, the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court might investigate the presence of this polarity.
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Achmad, Mulyanto. 2013. “Problematika Pengujian Peraturan Perundang-Undangan (Judicial Review) Pada Mahkamah Agung Dan Mahkamah Konstitusi.” Jurnal Yustisia 2 (1).
Doni Silalahi, S H A. 2016. “Kewenangan Yudisial Review Mahkamah Agung Terhadap Peraturan Perundang-Undangan di Bawah Undang-Undang.” Jurnal Nestor Magister Hukum 3 (3): 209848.
Faiz, Pan Mohamad. 2019. “Respons Konstitusional Larangan Calon Anggota Dewan Perwakilan Daerah sebagai Pengurus Partai Politik (Constitutional Response Concerning the Prohibition for Regional Representative Council Candidates as Political Party Officials).” Jurnal Konstitusi 16 (3): 532–58.
Farisa, Fitria Chusna. 2019. “Perjalanan Polemik Pencalonan OSO Sebagai Anggota DPD Hingga Akhirnya Diputus Bawaslu.” kompas.com, 10 Januari 2019. https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2019/01/10/10044601/perjalanan-polemik-pencalonan-oso-sebagai-anggota-dpd-hingga-akhirnya.
Goesniadhie, K. 2006. Harmonisasi Hukum. Surabaya: JPBooks.
Hanie, Ummu. 2019. “Disharmoni Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Dan Mahkamah Agung Tentang Syarat Calon Anggota Dewan Perwakilan Daerah.” IAIN Purwokerto.
Hardani, Ayuk, dan Lita Tyesta Addy Listiya Wardhani. 2019. “Implementasi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor: 30/PUU-XVI/2018 Menurut Sistem Hukum Di Indonesia.” Jurnal Pembangunan Hukum Indonesia 1 (2): 182–93.
Isra, Saldi. 2015. “Titik Singgung Wewenang Mahkamah Agung dengan Mahkamah Konstitusi.” Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan 4 (1): 17–30.
Putra, Antoni. 2018. “Dualisme Pengujian Peraturan Perundang-Undangan.” Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia 15 (2): 69–79.
Rizal, Khaerul. 2019. “Pencalonan Fungsionaris Partai Politik Sebagai Anggota Dewan Perwakilan Daerah Republik Indonesia (Analisis Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 65P/HUM/2018).” UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta.
Sari, Arifah Wulan, dan Muhammad Rustamji. 2020. “Analisis Ketidaksinkronan Putusan Hakim Dan Ketentuan Perundang-Undangan Terkait Justice Collaborator Dalam Perkara E-Ktp Irman Dan Sugiharto.” Jurnal Verstek 8 (3).
Sidharta. 2005. Menuju Harmonisasi Sistem Hukum Sebagai Pilar Pengelolaan Wilyah Pesisir Indonesia. Jakarta: Bapenas.
Simatupang, Taufik H. 2020. “Disharmoni Peraturan Perundang-Undangan Di Bidang Pengawasan Perwalian di Indonesia (Lintas Sejarah Dari Hukum Kolonial Ke Hukum Nasional).” Jurnal Penelitian Hukum DE JURE 20 (2): 221–32.
Soetandyo, W. 2002. Hukum: Paradigma, Metode, dan Dinamika Masalahnya. Jakarta: Elsa & Huma.
Syahur, T. 2011. Tafsiran Konstitusi Berbagai Aspek Hukum. Jakarta: Kencana.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2022 Ijtihad
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Ijtihad by Fakultas Syari'ah UIN Imam Bonjol Padang is licensed under a Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0)