LEGAL PROBLEMS OF DUALISM OF JUDICIAL REVIEW SYSTEM IN INDONESIA

Pan Mohamad Faiz

Abstract


Indonesia implements dualism of judicial review system because there are two different judicial institutions that are granted the authority to review laws and regulations, namely the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court. This research aims to analyse the problems caused by the dualism of judicial review system. It found two main legal problems of the current system. First, there is an inconsistency of decisions concerning judicial review cases for the same legal issues decided by the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court. Second, there is no mechanism to review the constitutionality of People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR) decisions and regulations under the level of law. Based on these findings, this research suggests that the authority to review all laws and regulations should be integrated under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court.

Keywords: Constitutional Court, Constitutional Review, Judicial Review


Full Text:

PDF

References


Amaral-Garcia, S., N. Garoupa and V. Grembi. “Judicial Independence and Party Politics in the Kelsenian Constitutional Courts: The Case of Portugal”. Journal of Emperical Legal Studies, Vol. 6 No. 2 June 2009. New Jersey: Cornell Law School and Wiley Periodicals;

Bahar, Saafroedin et al. 1995. Risalah Sidang Badan Penyelidik Usaha-Usaha Persiapan Kemerdekaan Indonesia (BPUPKI), Panitia Persiapan Kemerdekaan Indonesia (PPKI) 26 Mei 1945 - 22 Agustus 1945. Jakarta: Sekretariat Negara Republik Indonesia;

Benoit, William and J. D. Agostine. “‘The case of the midnight judges’ and Multiple Audience Discourse: Chief Justice Marshall and Marbury v. Madison”. The Southern Communication Journal, Vol. 59 No. 2 March 1994. Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis;

Bezemek, Christoph. “A Kelsenian Model of Constitutional Adjudication: The Austrian Constitutional Court”. Zeitschrift fur offentliches Recht, Vol. 67 March 2012. Vienna: Springer;

Comella, Victor Ferreres. “The European Model of Constitutional Review of Legislation: Toward decentralization?”. ICON - International Journal of Constitutional Law, Vol. 2 No. 3 July 2004. New York: Oxford University Press and New York University School of Law;

Dannemann, Gerhard. “Constitutional Complaints: The European Perspective”. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 43 No. 1 January 1994. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press;

Edwards, R. A. “Bonham’s Case: The Ghost in the Constitutional Machine”. Denning Law Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1 1996. Buckingham: University of Buckingham Press;

Faiz, Pan Mohamad. “A Prospect and Challenges for Adopting Constitutional Complaint and Constitutional Question in the Indonesian Constitutional Court”. Constitutional Review, Vol. 2 No. 1 May 2016. Jakarta: The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia;

Garlicki, Lech. “Constitutional Courts versus Supreme Courts”. International Journal of Constitutional Law. Vol. 5 No. 1 January 2007. New York: Oxford University Press and New York University School of Law;

Hoesein, Zainal Arifin. 2009. Judicial Review di Mahkamah Agung: Tiga Dekade Pengujian Peraturan Perundang-undangan. Jakarta: RajaGrafindo Persada;

Ihsanuddin. “Komnas Perempuan Minta Presiden Jokowi Hapus 365 Perda yang Diskriminatif”. Kompas. 20 March 2015. Available at http://nasional. kompas.com/read/2015/03/20/11583441/Komnas.Perempuan.Minta.Presiden.Jokowi.Hapus.365.Perda.yang.Diskriminatif. Accessed on 10 April 2016;

Kamala, Izzatin. “Harapan Baru Atas Pengelolaan Sumber Daya Air terkait Putusan MK Nomor 85/PUU-XI/2013”. Jurnal Konstitusi, Vol. 12 No. 3 September 2015. Jakarta: Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia.

Kargaudienė, Aušra. “Individual Constitutional Complaint in Lithuania: Conception and the Legal Issues”. Baltic Journal of Law & Politics. Vol. 4 No. 1 January 2011, Berlin: De Gruyter;

Kelsen, Hans. “Judicial Review of Legislation: A Comparative Study of the Austrian and the American Constitution”. Journal of Politics, Vol. 4, May 1942. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press;

Lagi, Sara. “Hans Kelsen and the Austrian Constitutional Court (1918-1929)”. Co-herencia. Vol. 9 No. 16 June 2012. Medellín: Universidad EAFIT;

Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat Republik Indonesia. 2008. Risalah Rapat ke-36 Panitia Ad Hoc I, Badan Pekerja MPR. Jakarta: Sekretariat Jenderal MPR RI;

Romeu, Francisco R. “The Establishment of Constitutional Courts: A Study of 128 Democratic Constitutions”. Review of Law & Economic, Vol. 2 No. 6 August 2006. Berlin: De Gruyter;

Saifudin and Dessy Ariani. “Kajian Yuridis Eksistensi dan Materi Ketetapan Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat Republik Indonesia dalam Hirarki Perundang-Undangan di Indonesia”. Jurnal Hukum IUS QUIA IUSTUM, Vol. 22 No. 1 January 2015. Yogyakarta: Universitas Islam Indonesia;

Sihotang, Januari and Andy Omara. “Kedudukan Ketetapan Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 12 Tahun 2011 dan Implikasi Yuridisnya terhadap Sistem Perundang-Undangan di Indonesia”. Jurnal Penelitian Hukum Gadjah Mada, Vol. 1 No. 1 November 2012. Yogyakarta: Fakultas Hukum Universitas Gadjah Mada;

Ülvan, Nazlı Can. “Constitutional Complaint and Individual Complaint in Turkey”. Ankara Bar Review. Vol. 6 No. 2 2013. Ankara: Ankara Bar Association.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.20884/1.jdh.2016.16.2.535

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.





JURNAL DINAMIKA HUKUMIndexed by :

 


 
Jurnal Dinamika Hukum
Faculty of Law, Universitas Jenderal SoedirmanCopyright of Jurnal Dinamika Hukum
Yustisia I Building, Room Number 111ISSN 2407-6562 (Online) ISSN 1410-0797 (Print)
Purwokerto, Central Java, Indonesia, 53122JDH is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License