Kewenangan Uji Material (Judicial Review) terhadap Ketetapan Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi


*Lintang Galih Pratiwi - Pascasarjana Ilmu Hukum Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia
CrossMark

Abstract

The re-enters of People’s Consultative Assembly’s Provision (MPR’S Provision) in the regulations of law hierarchy in Indonesia legal system, certainly has its own impact. One of them is the authority of the Constitutional Court in conducting judicial review. The problem is whether the Constitutional Court can review the MPR’S Provision or not. The research method used in this research was normative-juridical method. The research finding shows that: first, the Constitutional Court in its verdict stated that it has no power to be competent to review the MPR’S Provision. Second, the implication of that verdict is the causing the legal vacuum and the absence of the institution that is authorized to do a trial towards the MPR’s provisions. Third, to answer that problem, MPR’S Provision should be equalized with the Law (Act), so the authority to review People’s Consultative Assembly’s adjudication belongs to the Constitutional Court.

Keywords

MPR’S Provision; Judicial Review; Constitutional Court

How To Cite


APA: Pratiwi, L.G. (2020). Kewenangan Uji Material (Judicial Review) terhadap Ketetapan Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi. SASI, 26(4), 514-526. DOI: https://doi.org/10.47268/sasi.v26i4.268.
IEEE: L.G. Pratiwi, "Kewenangan Uji Material (Judicial Review) terhadap Ketetapan Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi", SASI, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 514-526, Dec. 2020. Accessed on: Apr. 21, 2021. [Online]. Available DOI: https://doi.org/10.47268/sasi.v26i4.268
Harvard: Pratiwi, L.G., (2020). "Kewenangan Uji Material (Judicial Review) terhadap Ketetapan Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi". SASI, Volume 26(4), pp. 514-526. [Online]. Available DOI: https://doi.org/10.47268/sasi.v26i4.268 (Accessed on: 21 April 2021)
Chicago: Pratiwi, Lintang Galih. "Kewenangan Uji Material (Judicial Review) terhadap Ketetapan Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi." SASI 26, no. 4 (December 20, 2020): 514-526. Accessed April 21, 2021. doi:10.47268/sasi.v26i4.268
Vancouver: Pratiwi LG. Kewenangan Uji Material (Judicial Review) terhadap Ketetapan Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi. SASI [Internet]. 2020 Dec 30 [cited 2021 Apr 21];26(4):514-526. Available from: https://doi.org/10.47268/sasi.v26i4.268
MLA 8th: Pratiwi, Lintang Galih. "Kewenangan Uji Material (Judicial Review) terhadap Ketetapan Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi." SASI, vol. 26, no. 4, 20 Dec. 2020, pp. 514-526, doi:10.47268/sasi.v26i4.268. Accessed 21 Apr. 2021.
BibTeX:
@article{SASI268,
			author = {Lintang Pratiwi},
			title = {Kewenangan Uji Material (Judicial Review) terhadap Ketetapan Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi},
			journal = {SASI},
			volume = {26},
			number = {4},
			year = {2020},
			keywords = {MPR’S Provision; Judicial Review; Constitutional Court},
			abstract = {The re-enters of People’s Consultative Assembly’s Provision (MPR’S Provision) in the regulations of law hierarchy in Indonesia legal system, certainly has its own impact. One of them is the authority of the Constitutional Court in conducting judicial review. The problem is whether the Constitutional Court can review the MPR’S Provision or not. The research method used in this research was normative-juridical method. The research finding shows that: first, the Constitutional Court in its verdict stated that it has no power to be competent to review the MPR’S Provision. Second, the implication of that verdict is the causing the legal vacuum and the absence of the institution that is authorized to do a trial towards the MPR’s provisions. Third, to answer that problem, MPR’S Provision should be equalized with the Law (Act), so the authority to review People’s Consultative Assembly’s adjudication belongs to the Constitutional Court.},
					issn = {2614-2961},			pages = {514--526}			doi = {10.47268/sasi.v26i4.268},
					url = {https://fhukum.unpatti.ac.id/jurnal/sasi/article/view/268}
		}
		
RefWorks:

Citation format: 

Jurnal

[1] Achmad, Mulyanto. (2013). "Problematika Pengujian Peraturan Perundang-Undangan (Judicial Review) Pada Mahkamah Agung Dan Mahkamah Konstitusi". Jurnal Yustisia 2 (1). https://doi.org/10.20961/yustisia.v2i1.11070

[2] Agustian, T. (2016). "Implikasi Pengujian Ketetapan MPR dalam Sistem Ketatanegaraan Republik Indonesia Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 75/PUU-XII/2014". Jurnal Lex Renaissance, 1 (1). https://doi.org/10.20885/JLR.vol1.iss1.art1

[3] Fajarwati, M. (2018). "Konstitusionalitas Ketetapan Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat dalam Hierarki Peraturan Perundang-Undangan". Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan, 48 (1). https://doi.org/10.21143/.vol48.no1.1596

[4] Hajri, Wira Atma dan Rahdiansyah. (2018). "Pengujian Peraturan Perundang-Undangan Di Indonesia: Persoalan Dan Jalan Keluarnya". UIR Law Review, 02 (01). https://doi.org/10.25299/uirlrev.2018.2.01.1436

[5] Kurniawan, Tyan Adi dan Wilda Prihatiningtyas. (2012). "Problematika Kedudukan Tap Mpr Dalam Uu No. 12 Tahun 2011 Tentang Pembentukan Peraturan Perundang-Undangan". Yuridika, 27 (2). https://doi.org/10.20473/ydk.v27i2.292

[6] Mahardika, Ahmad Gelora. (2019). "Politik Hukum Hierarki Tap Mpr Melalui Amandemen Undang-Undang Dasar 1945". Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia, 16 (3).

[7] Marthasari, Niken Eka. (2017). "Kedudukan Ketetapan Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat Sementara Dan Ketetapan Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat Republik Indonesia Terhadap Kedudukan Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat Sebagai Lembaga Negara Setelah Perubahan Undang-Undang Dasar 1945". Diponegoro Law Journal, 6 (2).

[8] Sihombing, Rudi Heriyanto. (2016). "Gagasan Pengujian Ketetapan Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat Dalam Sistem Pengujian Peraturan Perundang-Undangan Di Indonesia". JOM Fakultas Hukum, 3 (2).

[9] Suparto, (2020), "Kontroversi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Membatalkan Kewenangan Komisi Yudisial Melakukan Rekrutmen terhadap Hakim", SASI, 26 (2): 266-279. DOI: https://doi.org/10.47268/sasi.v26i2.252

[10] Wicaksono, D.A. (2013). "Implikasi Re-eksistensi Tap MPR dalam Hierarki Peraturan Perundang-Undangan Terhadap Jaminan Atas Kepastian Hukum yang Adil di Indonesia". Jurnal Konstitusi, 10 (1).

[11] Widayati, Absori dan Aidul Fitriciada Azhari. (2014). "Rekonstruksi Kedudukan Ketetapan Mpr Dalam Sistem Ketatanegaraan Indonesia". Jurnal Media Hukum, 21 (2).

Buku

[12] Asshiddie, J. (2006). Perihal Undang-Undang. Jakarta: Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia, Sekretariat Jenderal dan Kepaniteraan.

[13] Asshiddie, J. (2008), Menuju Negara Hukum yang Demokratis. Jakarta: Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia.

[14] Huda, N. (2014) Perkembangan Hukum Tata Negara Perdebatan & Gagasan Penyempurnaan. Yogyakarta: FH UII Press.

[15] Indrati, M.F. (2011). Ilmu Perundang-udangan 1: Jenis, Fungsi dan Materi Muatan. Yogyakarta: Kanisus.

[16] Ranggawidjaja, R. (1986). Perkembangan Hak Menguji Material di Indonesia.

[17] Soekanto, S. (1986). Pengantar Penelitian Hukum. Jakarta: UI Press.

[18] Soekanto, S. dan Mamudji, S. (2000). Penelitian Hukum Normatif. Jakarta: Rajarafindo.

Online/World Wide Web dan Lain-Lain

[19] Asshiddiqie, J. (2005). Sambutan dalam rangka Temuwicara Mahkamah Konstitusi dengan Pejabat Pemerintah Daerah se-Indonesia tentang Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia, di Jakarta, 7-9 April 2005.

[20] Hidayat, R. Mereposisi Status Tap MPR dalam Sistem Hukum Indonesia. Available form https://www.hukumonline.com/berita/baca/lt5b7802cb9fcf1/mereposisi-status-tap-mpr-dalam-sistem-hukum-indonesia.

Full Text:

PDF HTML
131 times.
PDF Views: 43 times. HTML Views: 620 times.

 

Cited-By:

 

1. Problematika Pengujian Peraturan Perundang-Undangan Di Mahkamah Agung ( Kajian Terhadap Putusan Mahkamah Agung No. 65 P/HUM/2018)
Suparto Suparto
SASI  vol: 27  issue: 1  first page: 61  year: 2021  
Type: Journal [View Source]






Copyright (c) 2020 Lintang Galih Pratiwi

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.