Constitutional Court & Judicial Power in Indonesia Riana Susmayanti, SH. MH.

Presentasi berjudul: "Constitutional Court & Judicial Power in Indonesia Riana Susmayanti, SH. MH."— Transcript presentasi:

1 Constitutional Court & Judicial Power in Indonesia Riana Susmayanti, SH. MH

2 A. Constitutional Court & Judicial Power in Indonesia 1.Idea of Judicial Review & Constititutional Court 2.History of Constitutional Court in Indonesia

3 1. Marbury vs Madison (1803)  US Supreme Court nullify the provisions of Judiciary Act 1789 because its contrary to the US Constitution  Actually, the Supreme Court dont have the authority to do so, but John Marshall (Chief Justice US SC) argued that Chief Justice have the constitutional duty and oath to uphold and maintain the Constitution

4  General Election 1800, President John Adams failed to govern for 2nd period  defeated by Thomas Jefferson (Democratic-Republic Party)  In transition period, before handover the governance to new President Thomas Jefferson, John Adams make decisions to save & give his colleagues important positions  Including, John Marshall (Secretary of State, President John Adams, Federal Party) was appointed as Chief Justice

5  In the transition period, John Adams & John Marshall (Chief Justice, serves as Secretary of State), still continue to prepare and sign documents for officials, ambassadors and judges.  Among them was William Marbury, Dennis Ramsay, Robert Townsend Hooe, & William Harper who was appointed as Justice of Peace).  Unfortunately, the copy of the appointment letter, not having duly handed over.

6  On the next day, March 4, 1801, those letter was still in the presidential office.  Therefore, when Thomas Jefferson as the new president began work on the first day, those documents was retained by James Madison (the new Secretary of State).

7  The detention of those letters makes William Marbury et al through their attorney (Charles Lee, former Federal Attorney General), filed the case directly to the Supreme Court which led by John Marshall to ordered the government delivers those documents  That authorities known as the 'writ of mandamus'

8  Because of their appointment to the bench was approved by Congress as it should and that the appointment was also stated in the Presidential Decree that has been signed and officially stamped (sealed).  Under the Judiciary Act of 1789, MA authority to examine and rule on cases which they propose and issue a 'writ of mandamus' which they had demanded.

9 Writ of mandamus :  Sebuah surat perintah atau perintah dari pengadilan yang luar biasa karena dibuat tanpa proses peradilan penuh, atau sebelum kasus disimpulkan.  Ini dapat dikeluarkan oleh pengadilan setiap saat, tetapi biasanya dikeluarkan dalam sebuah kasus yang sudah dimulai.

10  However, Jefferson’s Government refused to provide information requested by the Supreme Court for the Government to show evidence why 'the writ of mandamus' as argued by plaintiff can not be excluded.  On the contrary, the Congress (the majority of the Republic) in favor of Thomas Jefferson government, legitimize the Act that delay all proceedings in Supreme Court for more than 1 year.

11 Decision of US Supreme Court  SC confirmed that the administration of John Adams has done all the requirements prescribed by law that William Marbury and his friends considered is entitled to their appointment letters, according to the law.  SC in its decision stated are not authorized to order government officials to submit letters meant.  SC stated that what was requested by the plaintiff, namely that the SC issued 'writ of mandamus' as defined by Section 13 of the Judiciary Act 1789 can not be justified, because the provisions of the Judiciary Act itself precisely contrary to Article III Section 2 Constitution of the US.

12 NOTE :  Supreme Court did not grant the request for implementing the judiciary act (issuing president decree), instead canceling the judiciary act.  This case violates ultra petita, the judge requested beyond the requested  Landmark Decision

13 DRAFTING UUD 1945(BPUPK,1945)  Member of BPUPK, Prof. M. Yamin : “Balai Agung” (Supreme Court) need to be given the authority of Judicial Review  to protect the human rights of the citizens from the state power  Prof Supomo rejected: there is no Trias Politica in Constitution, less sholars with law degree, has never been a judicial review, the state may not disadvantage th citizen

14 HANS KELSEN Ide pembentukan lembaga ini bermula dari usulan Prof. Hans Kelsen (ahli HTN terkenal), yaitu ketika ia diangkat menjadi penasihat ahli dalam rangka ide perancangan konstitusi baru Austria pada tahun 1919. Mengusulkan dibentuknya lembaga “verfassungsgerichtshof” atau Mahkamah Konstitusi yang secara resmi dibentuk dengan UU tahun 1920.

15 SUMBER HUKUM MK Materiil : Pancasila, asas, teori HTN Formil : ketentuan hukum positif yg mengatur / terkait dg MK

16 Hans Kelsen Konstitusi adalah produk kontrak sosial seluruh rakyat sebagai pemegang kedaulatan tertinggi Karena yg membuat adalah pemegang kedaulatan tertinggi maka produk hukumnya juga tertinggi Mengapa hirariki : jika dibuat oleh aturan yang lebih tinggi, dg sendirinya bisa dilihat falid atau tidak sahnya Prosedur kewenangan  diberikan atribusi kewenangan Isinya  sesuai dgn aturan diatasnya Siapa yang membuat ?  berwenang buat ? Utk menilai hukum bukan dari berlaku atau tidak, tapi keseuaian dengan aturan diatasnya

17 DASAR PEMIKIRAN Pentingnya judicial review Mengimbangi kekuasaan pembentuk UU  check and balance Berubahnya Supremasi MPR -  supremasi konstitusi Perlindungan HAM dan hak konstitusional WN

18 MK RI UsulanYamin  Balai Agung berwenang membanding UU Konstitusi RIS  MA berwenang menguji UU Negara Bagian Rekomendasi PAH II MPRS 1966-1967  MA berwenang menguji UU IKAHI 1970 MA memiliki JR Tap MPR No. III/MPR/2000  MPR berwenang menguji UU thd UUD Perubahan III UUD 1945  MK

19 KEDUDUKAN MK Sebagai Lembaga Negara Pelaku kekuasaan kehakiman  menyelenggarakan peradilan  produknya putusan Pasif  selama belum ada permohonan, tidak ada persidangan Sejajar dengan Lembaga Negara lain Merdeka (impaartial)

20 4 Wewenang + 1 Kewajiban

21 FUNGSI Pengawal konstitusi – the guardian of the constitution Penafsir final konstitusi – the final interpreter of the constitution Pelindung HAM – the protector of human rights Pelindung hak konstitusional WN – the protector of the citizens constitutional rights Pelindung demokrasi – the protector of democracy

22 SUMBER HUKUM UUD 1945 UU 24 / 2003 PMK PUTUSAN MK KONVENSI / PERJANJIAN INTERNASIONAL

23 PASAL 50 UU yg diundangkan setelah amandemen Dikesampingkan

24 Peradilan biasa Putusan hakim  baru diketahui hakim suap Upaya hukum : Banding Bukan suapnya, tapi apakah fakta hukum sudah dipertimbangkan Suapnya perkara terpisah MK putusannya final & mengikat, hanya sengketa hasil pemilu yg bisa tp dengan alasan yang beda Beda lagi putusan administrasi yang bisa dibatalkan kalo ada tindak pidanannya