Regulation Arrangement through The Judicial Power: The Challenges of Adding the Authority of The Constitutional Court and The Supreme Court
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Disharmony and regulation arrangement is one of the problems in Indonesia that has not been completely resolved. Efforts have been made by the government and various parties. But in reality, disharmony and regulation arrangement are still a problem in Indonesia. There needs to be an out of the box solution, one of which involves the judicial power to organize regulations. The researchers in this article have two problem formulations, namely (1) how is the arrangement of regulations through judicial power from the theoretical aspect? and (2) how is the arrangement of regulations through the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court to realize a synchronized and harmonious simplification of regulations? First, regulatory arrangements can be made by the judiciary through instruments and processes called judicial review. Theoretically, judicial review can be used as an instrument and a process for structuring regulations so that they are synchronous and harmonious. In Indonesia, a judicial review has been applied to the authority of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court. This means that theoretically, regulatory arrangements can be made by the judiciary, in this case the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court. Second, the judicial review carried out in the context of structuring regulations must be comprehensive on all types of laws and regulations and systematically tiered. Judicial review can also be done horizontally and vertically.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
All writings published in this journal are personal views of the authors and do not represent the views of this journal and the author's affiliated institutions. Author(s) retain copyrights under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0).
References
Alstyne, William W. Van. “A Critical Guide to Marbury v. Madison.” Duke Law Journal 1, no. 1 (1969): 1–47. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315053561-16.
Asshiddiqie, Jimly. “Sejarah Constitutional Review Dan Gagasan Pembentukan Mahkamah Konstitusi.” In The Three “E” Lecture Series, 1–15, 2012.
Asshiddiqie, Jimly, and M. Ali Safa’at. Teori Hans Kelsen Tentang Hukum. Pertama. Jakarta: Sekretariat Jenderal & Kepaniteraan Mahkamah Konstitusi RI, 2006.
Busroh, Firman Freaddy. “Konseptualisasi Omnibus Law Dalam Menyelesaikan Permasalahan Regulasi Pertanahan.” Arena Hukum 10, no. 2 (2017): 227–50. https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.arenahukum.2017.01002.4.
Butt, Simon. “Judicial Reasoning and Review in the Indonesian Supreme Court.” Asian Journal of Law and Society 6, no. August 2018 (2019): 67–97. https://doi.org/10.1017/als.2018.26.
———. “The Indonesian Constitutional Court: Reconfiguring Decentralization for Better or Worse?” Asian Journal of Comparative Law 14, no. 1 (2019): 147–74. https://doi.org/10.1017/asjcl.2018.19.
Cakra, I Putu Eka, and Aditya Yuli Sulistyawan. “Kompabilitas Penerapan Konsep Omnibus Law Dalam Sistem Hukum Indonesia.” Jurnal Crepido 2, no. 2 (2020): 59–69. https://doi.org/10.14710/crepido.2.2.59-69.
Cappelletti, Mauro. “Judicial Review in Comparative Perspective.” California Law Review 58, no. 5 (1970): 1017–53. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315246024-13.
Chalid, Hamid. “Dualism of Judicial Review in Indonesia: Problems and Solutions.” Indonesia Law Review 7, no. 3 (2017): 366–93.
Diniyanto, Ayon. “Indonesian’s Pillars Democracy: How This Country Survives.” Journal of Indonesian ILegal Studies 1, no. 01 (2016): 105–14. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.15294/jils.v1i01.16572.
———. “Omnibus Law Dan Demokrasi Kita.” Artikel RechtsVinding, 2021.
———. “Peraturan Daerah Dana Cadangan.” Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia 18, no. 4 (2021): 478–91. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.54629/jli.v18i4.803.
———. Perlindungan Dan Penguatan Komunitas Minoritas: Kajian Terhadap Eksistensi Komunitas Islam Aboge. Pekalongan: Scientist Publishing, 2021.
———. “Reformasi Hukum Tanah Desa: Redefinisi Dan Penguatan Kedudukan.” Jurnal Rechts Vinding: Media Pembinaan Hukum Nasional 8, no. 3 (2019): 351–65. https://doi.org/10.33331/rechtsvinding.v8i3.331.
———. “Tindak Pidana Pemilu Dalam Perspektif Negara Demokrasi Indonesia.” In Seminar Nasional Hukum Universitas Negeri Semarang, 4:422–29, 2018.
Diniyanto, Ayon, Bambang Sri Hartono, and Heris Suhendar. “Strategi Dan Model Omnibus Law Dalam Penataan Regulasi.” YUDISIA : Jurnal Pemikiran Hukum Dan Hukum Islam 12, no. 2 (2021): 165–86. https://doi.org/10.21043/yudisia.v12i2.10162.
Diniyanto, Ayon, and Dani Muhtada. “The Dynamics and Future of Qanun in the Welfare of the People of Aceh.” Bestuurskunde: Journal of Governmental Studies 2, no. 1 (2022): 31–42. https://doi.org/10.53013/bestuurskunde.2.1.31-42.
Faiz, Pan Mohamad. “Legal Problems of Dualism of Judicial Review System in Indonesia.” Jurnal Dinamika Hukum 16, no. 2 (2016): 89–96. https://doi.org/10.20884/1.jdh.2016.16.2.535.
Harjono, Dhaniswara K. “Konsep Omnibus Law Ditinjau Dari Undang-Undang No. 12 Tahun 2011 Tentang Pembentukan Peraturan Perundang-Undangan.” Jurnal Hukum: Hukum Untuk Mengatur Dan Melindungi Masyarakat 6, no. 2 (2020): 96–110.
Kelsen, Hans. General Theory of Law and State. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1949.
———. Pure Theory of Law. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1967.
Law, David S. “A Theory of Judicial Power and Judicial Review.” Georgetown Law Journal 97 (2009): 723–801.
Maharani, Tsarina. “Banyaknya Aturan Turunan UU Cipta Kerja Dinilai Bertentangan Dengan Tujuan Pemerintah.” Kompas.com, 2020.
Martitah. Sistem Pengujian Konstitusional (Constitutional Review) Di Indonesia. Jakarta: Konstitusi Press, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190469771.013.7.
———. “Why Legitimacy Matters in Times of Uncertainty: A Critical Study of the Success Story of the Constitutional Court of Indonesia.” Asia-Pacific Social Science Review 19, no. 1 (2019): 233–39.
Miles, Matthew B., and A. Michael Huberman. An Expanded Sourcebook Qualitative Data Analysis. SAGE Publications, Inc. 2nd ed. Vol. 1304. California: SAGE Publications, Inc., 1994.
Muhtada, Dani, and Ayon Diniyanto. Dasar-Dasar Ilmu Negara. Semarang: BPFH Unnes, 2018.
———. “Harmonisasi Peraturan Daerah: Tantangan Dan Strategi Di Era Otonomi Daerah.” In Konferensi Nasional Hukum Tata Negara (KNHTN) Ke - 4 “Penataan Regulasi Di Indonesia.” Jember: UPT Penerbitan Universitas Jember, 2017.
———. “Penataan Regulasi Di Indonesia Melalui Lembaga Independen.” Pandecta: Research Law Journal 16, no. 2 (2021): 278–90. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.15294/pandecta.v16i2.31866.
———. “Penguatan Peran BPIP Dan Strategi Membumikan Pancasila Untuk Melindungi Kelompok Minoritas.” Pancasila: Jurnal Keindonesiaan 01, no. 01 (2021): 111–21.
Palguna, I Dewa Gede. “Constitutional Complaint and the Protection of Citizens the Constitutional Rights.” Constitutional Review 3, no. 1 (2017): 1. https://doi.org/10.31078/consrev311.
———. “Constitutional Question: Latar Belakang Dan Praktik Di Negara Lain Serta Kemungkinan Penerapannya Di Indonesia.” Jurnal Hukum Ius Quia Iustum 17, no. 1 (2010): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.20885/iustum.vol17.iss1.art1.
Pound, Rescoe. “The Theory of Judicial Decision.” Harvard Law Review 36, no. 8 (1923): 940–59.
Prabowo, Haris. “Omnibus Cipta Kerja Justru Bikin Regulasi Makin Gemuk.” Tirto.id, 2020.
Setiadi, Wicipto. “Simplifikasi Regulasi Dengan Menggunakan Metode Pendekatan Omnibus Law.” Jurnal RechtsVinding: Media Pembinaan Hukum Nasional 9, no. 9 (2020): 39–52.
Tambun, Lenny Tristia. “Target Molor, Istana Sebut Penyusunan Omnibus Law Butuh Waktu Sinkronisasi.” Beritasatu.com, 2020.
Treanor, William Michael. “Judicial Review Before Marbury.” Stanford Law Review 58 (2005): 455–562.