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

Lintang Galih Pratiwi(1email)


(1) Pascasarjana Ilmu Hukum Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia
email Corresponding Author
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


DOI


10.47268/sasi.v26i4.268

Published


2020-12-30

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. 24, 2025. [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: 24 April 2025)
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 24, 2025. 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 2025 Apr 24];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 24 Apr. 2025.
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:

   


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

Article Metrics

Abstract View grafik : 5384 times
PDF icon PDF Download : 1680 times HTML icon PDF Download : 125075 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]

 
Dublin Core PKP Metadata Items Metadata for this Document
 
1. Title Title of document Kewenangan Uji Material (Judicial Review) terhadap Ketetapan Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi
 
2. Creator Author's name, affiliation, country Lintang Galih Pratiwi; Pascasarjana Ilmu Hukum Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta; Indonesia
 
3. Subject Discipline(s)
 
3. Subject Keyword(s) MPR’S Provision; Judicial Review; Constitutional Court
 
4. Description 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.
 
5. Publisher Organizing agency, location Faculty of Law, Universitas Pattimura
 
6. Contributor Sponsor(s)
 
7. Date (YYYY-MM-DD) 2020-12-30
 
8. Type Status & genre Peer-reviewed Article
 
8. Type Type
 
9. Format File format PDF, HTML
 
10. Identifier Uniform Resource Identifier https://fhukum.unpatti.ac.id/jurnal/sasi/article/view/268
 
10. Identifier Digital Object Identifier 10.47268/sasi.v26i4.268
 
11. Source Title; vol., no. (year) SASI; Vol 26, No 4 (2020): Volume 26 Nomor 4, Oktober - Desember 2020
 
12. Language English=en en
 
13. Relation Supp. Files
 
14. Coverage Geo-spatial location, chronological period, research sample (gender, age, etc.)
 
15. Rights Copyright and permissions

Copyright:

Authors who publish their manuscripts in this Journal agree to the following conditions:

1. The copyright in each article belongs to the author, as well as the right to patent.

2. Authors can enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.

3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) before and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.

4. Authors have the right to self-archiving of the article (Author Self-Archiving Policy)

 

License: The SASI Journal is disseminated based on the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International license terms. This license allows anyone to copy and redistribute this material in any form or format, compose, modify, and make derivatives of this material for any purpose. You cannot use this material for commercial purposes. You must specify an appropriate name, include a link to the license, and certify that any changes have been made. You can do this in a way that is appropriate but does not imply that the licensor supports you or your use.

 

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



Copyright (c) 2020 Lintang Galih Pratiwi

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

 

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]