•  
  •  
 

Abstract

Through the momentum of the third amendment of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia which was passed in 2001, Indonesia has officially adopted a dualistic judicial review system. Under such system, the authority to conduct judicial review is divided/spread to the two judicial organs, each with its own scope of review; namely, the Supreme Court/Mahkamah Agung reviews regulations below the level of Law (Undangundang), while the Constitutional Court/Mahkamah Konstitusi reviews the same against the Constitution (constitutional review). Seen from the theoretical and practical perspective adhered to by states which adopt the formation of the Constitutional Court (centered judicial review model), the system adopted by Indonesia is uncommon, and moreover it could be considered as an error in designing the judicial review system. This is in view of the fact that in states which have a Constitutional Court, the authority to conduct judicial review is concentrated / centered upon the Constitutional Court. Such division of authority under the two review regime (legal review and constitutional review) as practiced by Indonesia is not known (except for South Korea), neither in states which use the centralized judicial review model nor in those which use the distribution judicial review model. Such distribution is bound to disrupt the judicial review itself, as the authority to review is implemented by two different institutions with different review standard. Accordingly, in the final part of this research the author puts forward the proposition to centralize the authority to conduct judicial review in the Constitutional Court thus putting an end to the practice of dualistic judicial review which has been proven to be problematic and ensuring that the judicial review system in Indonesia can be reconstructed and placed upon the correct theoretical and practical basis.

Bahasa Abstract

Melalui momentum Perubahan Ketiga UUD 1945 yang disahkan pada tahun 2001, Indonesia secara resmi mengadopsi sistem judicial review yang bersifat dualistik (dualisme judicial review). Dengan sistem yang dualistik ini, kewenangan judicial review menyebar/terbagi kepada dua organ yudisial dengan memisahkan cakupan pengujiannya masing-masing: Mahkamah Agung menguji peraturan di bawah undang-undang terhadap undang-undang (legal review) sementara Mahkamah Konstitusi menguji undang-undang terhadap UUD (constitutional review). Ditinjau dari perspektif teori dan praktek yang dianut oleh negara-negara yang mengadopsi pembentukan Mahkamah Konstitusi (model judicial review yang terpusat), sistem yang dianut oleh Indonesia itu ternyata sangat tidak lazim dan bahkan merupakan sebuah kekeliruan dalam merancang sistem judicial review. Sebab di negara-negara yang memiliki Mahkamah Konstitusi, kewenangan judicial review itu pasti akan dikonsentrasikan/dipusatkan kepada Mahkamah Konstitusi. Pembagian kewenangan ini ke dalam dua rezim pengujian (legal review dan constitutional review) sebagaimana dipraktekan di Indonesia tidak pernah dikenal (kecuali di Korea Selatan) baik di lingkungan negara-negara yang menggunakan model judicial review yang terpusat maupun model judicial review yang tersebar. Sebab pembagian yang demikian akan mengacaukan pelaksanaan judicial review itu sendiri lantaran kewenangan itu akan dilaksanakan oleh dua lembaga yang berbeda dengan menggunakan standar pengujian yang juga berbeda. Untuk itu pada bagian akhir penelitian ini dikemukakan sebuah proposisi untuk memusatkan kewenangan judicial review kepada Mahkamah Konstitusi agar praktek dualisme judicial review yang terbukti bermasalah itu dapat diakhir dan sistem judicial review di Indonesia dapat direkonstruksi dan ditempatkan pada landasan teori dan praktek yang tepat.

References

Bibliography Legal Documents Chile. Constitution of the Republic of Chile. Constitutional Court of Republic of Indonesia. “Decision No. 110-111-112-113/PUUVII/ 2009.” Indonesia. Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945 (The 1945 Constitution of Republic of Indonesia). Indonesia. Undang-Undang tentang Mahkamah Konstitusi (Law regarding the Constitutional Court). UU No. 24 Tahun 2003, LN No. 98 Tahun 2003 (Law Number 24 Year 2003, SG No. 98 Year 2003). Indonesia. Undang-Undang tentang Perubahan atas Undang-Undang No. 24 Tahun 2003 tentang Mahkamah Konstitusi (Law regarding Amendment of Law Number 24 Year 23 regarding the Constitutional Court). UU No. 8 Tahun 2011, LN No. 70 Tahun 2011 (Law Number 8 Year 2011, SG No. 70 Year 2011). Indonesia. Undang-Undang tentang Ketentuan-Ketentuan Pokok Kekuasaan Kehakiman (Law Regarding Basic Provisions of Judiciary Power). UU No. 14 Tahun 1970, LN No. 74 Tahun 1970 (Law Number 14 Year 1970, SG No. 74 Year 1970). Indonesia. Undang-Undang tentang Pembentukan Peraturan Perundang-Undangan (Law Regarding Statutory Law Making). UU No. 12 Tahun 2011, LN No. 82 Tahun 2011 (Law Number 12 Year 2011, SG No. 82 Year 2011). South Africa. South Africa’s Constitution of 1996. South Korea. 1948 Constitution of Republic of South Korea. Taiwan. Taiwan’s Constitution of 1947. Supreme Court of Republic of Indonesia. “Decision No. 13 P/HUM/2009.” Supreme Court of Republic of Indonesia. “Decision No. 15 P/HUM/2009.” Supreme Court of Republic of Indonesia. “Decision No. 16 P/HUM/2009.” Supreme Court of Republic of Indonesia. “Decision No. 16 P/HUM/2009.” Books Abraham, Henry J. The Judicial Process: an Introductory of the Court of the United States, England, and France. London: Oxford University Press, 1975. Asshiddiqie, Jimly and Ahmad Syahrizal. Peradilan Konstitusi di 10 Negara. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2012. Asshiddiqie, Jimly and Mustafa Fakhry. Mahkamah Konstitusi: Kompilasi Ketentuan UUD, Undang-Undang, dan Peraturan tentang Mahkamah Konstitusi di 78 Negara. [The Constitutional Court: Compilation of Provisions of the Constitution, Laws and Regulations on the Constitutional Court in 78 Countries] Jakarta: PSHTN FH UI, 2003. Asshiddiqie, Jimly. Konsolidasi Naskah UUD 1945 Setelah Perubahan Keempat. [Consolidation of the Text of the 1945 Constitution After the Fourth Amendment], Jakarta: Yarsif Watampone, 2003. ˗˗˗˗˗˗˗˗˗˗˗. Hukum Acara Pengujian Undang-Undang. Procedural Law for Judicial Review], Second Edition, First Print. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2010. ˗˗˗˗˗˗˗˗˗˗˗. Model-Model Pengujian Konstitusional di Berbagai Negara. [Models of Constitutional Review in Various Countries], Second Edition, 1st Print. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2010. ˗˗˗˗˗˗˗˗˗˗˗. Konstitusi dan Konstitusionalisme Indonesia. [Constitution and Constitutionalism in Indonesia]. 2nd Print, Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2011. ˗˗˗˗˗˗˗˗˗˗˗. Perkembangan dan Konsolidasi Lembaga Negara Pasca Reformasi. [Development and Consolidation of State Institutions in the Post-Reform Era2nd Ed., Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2012. Cappelleti, Mauro. The Judicial Process Comperative Perspective. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989. Fatmawati. Hak Menguji (Toetsingsrecht) yang Dimiliki Hakim dalam Sistem Hukum Indonesia. [The Right of Judges to Conduct Review (Toetsingrecht) in Indonesia’s Legal System], Jakarta: RajaGrafindo Persada, 2005. Ginsburg, Tom. Judicial Review in New Democracies; Constitutional Court in Asian Case. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003. Hoessein, Zainal Arifin. Judicial Review di Mahkamah Agung: Tiga Dekade Pengujian Peraturan Perundang-undangan. [Judicial Review in the Supreme Court: Three Decades of Review of Laws and Regulations], Second Print. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers, 2013. Jackson, Vicki C. & Mark Tushnet. Comparative Constitutional Law. Second Edition. New York: Foundation Press, 2006. Kelsen, Hans. General Theory of Law and State. New York: Russell & Russell, 1961. ˗˗˗˗˗˗˗˗˗˗˗. Pure Theory of Law. New Jersey: The Lawbook Exchange, 2005. Koopmans, Tim. Court and Political Institutions: a Comparative View. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Lev, Daniel S. Hukum dan Politik di Indonesia: Kesinambungan dan Perubahan. [Continuity and Change]. Jakarta:LP3ES, 1990. Mahfud M.D. Perdebatan Hukum Tata Negara Pasca Amandemen Konstitusi. [Constitutional Law Debate Following the Amendment of the Constitution], Jakarta: PT. Raja Grafindo Persada, 2010. Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia. Naskah Komprehensif Perubahan Undang- Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945: Latar Belakang, Proses, dan Hasil Pembahasan 1999-2002. [Comprehensive Text of the Amendment of the 1945 Constitution of the State of the Republic of Indonesia: Background, Process and the Proceedings of Discussions 1999- 2002], Book IV State Governance Authority, Volume 1, Revised Edition, Jakarta, 2010. Manan, Bagir and Susi Dwi Harijanti. Memahami Konstitusi: Makna dan Aktualisasi. [Understanding the Constitution: Essence and Actualization]. Jakarta: PT Raja GrafindoPersada, 2014.

Palguna, I Dewa Gede. Constitutional Complaint (Pengaduan Konstitusional) Upaya Hukum terhadap Pelanggaran Hak-Hak Konstitusional Warga Negara. [Constitutional Complaint; Legal Recourse against Violations of Citizens’ Constitutional Rights], Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2013. Rehnquist, William H. The Supreme Court: How It Was, How It Is. New York: William Marrow, 1989. ˗˗˗˗˗˗˗˗˗˗˗. The Supreme Court: Revised and Update. New York: Vintage Books – Random House, 2002. Soemantri, Sri. Hak Uji Material di Indonesia. [The Right for Substantive Review in Indonesia]. Second Edition. First Print Bandung: Alumni, 1997. ˗˗˗˗˗˗˗˗˗˗˗. Hukum Tata Negara Indonesia: Pemikiran dan Pandangan [Indonesia’s Constitutional Law: A Reflection and View]. (Bandung: PT. Remaja Rosdakarya, 2014. Sweet, Alec Stone. The Birth of Judicial Politics in France: The Constitutional Council in Comparative Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. ˗˗˗˗˗˗˗˗˗˗˗. Governing with Judges. Oxford: University Press, 2000. Whittington, Keith E. et.al., The Oxford Handbook of Law and Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Yamin, Mohammad. Naskah Persiapan Undang-Undang Dasar 1945. [The Preparatory Text of the 1945 Constitution], Volume I. Jakarta: Yayasan Prapanca, 1959. Articles Borowski, Martin. “The Beginnings of Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court.” Journal Ratio Juris 16, no. 2 (2003): 155–186. Faiz, Pan Mohammad. “The Protection of Civil and Political Rights by The Constitutional Court of Indonesia.” Indonesia Law Review Vol. 6 No. 2 (May-August 2016): 158-179. Comella, Victor Ferreres. “Is the European Model of Constitutional Review in Crisis.” Paper presented for the 12th Annual Conference on the “Individual Vs. the State’, Central European University, Budapest, June 18-19, 2004. ˗˗˗˗˗˗˗˗˗˗˗. “The European Model of Constitutional Review of Legislation: Towards Decentralization?” International Journal of Constitutional Law Vol. 2 No. 3 (July-October 2004): 461-491. Cappelleti, Mauro. “Judicial Review in Comparative Perspective.” California Law Review 58, issue 5 (October 1970): 1017-53., Finck, Danielle E. “Judicial review: The United States Supreme Court Versus the German Constitutional Court.” Boston College International and Comparative Law Review 20, no. 1 (December 1997): 123-157. Harel, Alon and Adam Shinar. “Between Judicial and Legislative Supremacy: A Cautious Defense of Constrained Judicial Review.” International Journal of Comparative Constitutional Law 10, no. 4 (October 2012): 950–975. Hausmaninger, Herbert. “Judicial Referral of Constitutional Questions in Austria, Germany, and Russia.” Tulane European and Civil Law Forum 12 (Winter 1997): 25 Horowitz, Donald L. “Constitutional Courts: A Primer For Decision Makers.“ Journal of Democracy Volume 17, no. 4 (October 2006): 125-137. Kompas. “MA Batalkan Putusan KPU.” [The Supreme Court Cancels KPU Decision]. (July 23, 2009). Lagi, Sara. “Hans Kelsen and the Austrian Constitutional Court (1918-1929).” Revista Co-herencia 9, No. 16 (January-June 2012): 273-295. Simamora, Janpatar. “Considering Centralization Of Judicial Review Authority In Indonesia Constitutional System.” IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science 21, no. 2 (February 2016): 26-32. Siregar, Fritz Edward. “The Political Context of Judicial Review in Indonesia.” Indonesia Law Review Vol. 5 No. 2 (May-August 2015): 208-237. Sweet, Alec Stone. “The Politics of Constitutional Review in France and Europe.” International Journal of Constitutional Law 5, No. 1 (Januay 2007): 69-92. ˗˗˗˗˗˗˗˗˗˗˗. “Why Europe Rejected American Judicial Review and Why it May Not Matter.” Faculty Scholarship Series. Yale Law School. New Haven. 2003. Website Asshiddiqie, Jimly. “Sejarah Constitutional Review dan Gagasan Pembentukan MK. [The History of Constitutional Review and the Idea of Establishing the Constitutional Court”. http://jimlyschool.com/read/analisis/276/sejarahconstitutional- review-gagasan-pembentukan-mk/. Accessed on September 20, 2016. Badan Pembinaan Hukum Nasional. “Perundang-undangan Pusat.” [“Central Legislation”]. http://bphn.go.id/peraturan/perpu. Accessed on October 20, 2016. Ferreres, Victor. “The Consequences of Centralizing Constitutional Review in a Special Court: Some thoughts on Judicial Activism.” http://digitalcommons.law.yale. edu/yls_sela/39. Accessed on September 22, 2016. Ginsburg, Tom. “Comparative Constitutional Review.” http:// comparativeconstitutionsproject.org/files/constitutional_review.pdf. Accessed on September 22, 2016. Horowitz, Donald L. “Constitutional Courts: Opportunities and Pitfalls.” http://www. constitutionnet.org/files/E24ConstitutionalCourtsOppsPitfallsHorowitz.pdf. Accessed on September 18, 2016. Yaqin, Arief Ainul. “Pengujian Konstitusional (Constitutional Review) di Indonesia.” [“Constitutional Review in Indonesia”]. http://equityjusticia.blogspot. co.id/2015/02/pengujian-konstitusional-di-indonesia.html. Accessed on September 18, 2016. ˗˗˗˗˗˗˗˗˗˗˗.“Model-Model Judicial Review: Decentralized Judicial Review dan Centralized Judicial Review.” [“Judicial Review Models: Decentralize Judicial Review and Centralized Judicial Review”]. http://equityjusticia.blogspot.co.id/2016/05/ model-model-judicial-review.html. Accessed on September 22, 2016. ˗˗˗˗˗˗˗˗˗˗˗. “Sejarah Judicial Review (Kasus Marbury versus Madison 1803).” [The History of Judicial Review (Marbury v. Madison Case of 1803)”]. http://equityjusticia. blogspot.co.id/2014/11/sejarah-judicial-review-kasus-marbury.html. Accessed on September 22, 2016.

Download

Share

COinS