Pengujian Formil Peraturan Antara Indonesia dan Kolombia

Authors

  • Adithya Tri Firmansyah Fakultas Hukum Universitas Brawijaya
  • Syofina Dwi Putri Aritonang Fakultas Hukum Universitas Brawijaya
  • Amalia Zulfa Pritasari Fakultas Hukum Universitas Brawijaya
  • Muhammad Nizar Zulmi Fakultas Hukum Universitas Brawijaya
  • Imera Azzahra Alivia Fakultas Hukum Universitas Brawijaya

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31328/wy.v7i2.5010

Keywords:

Optimalisasi, Mahkamah Konstitusi, Pengujian Formil.

Abstract

The authority to review laws by the Constitutional Court is manifested in 2 (two) forms, namely material testing and formal testing. However, since the existence of the Constitutional Court, only 1 (one) application has been granted by the Constitutional Court, namely a request for a formal review of the Job Creation Law. Even then, it was only partially granted. The existence of this fact certainly shows that the role of the Constitutional Court has not been optimal. Therefore, this research aims to outline the prescription of the need to optimize the role of the Constitutional Court in the formal review of laws. This research uses normative (legal) research typology. The results of this study conclude: First, the role of the Constitutional Court in the formal review of laws can still be said to be not optimal because the Constitutional Court itself is still very limited in canceling laws, as evidenced in Decision Number 91 / PUU-XVIII / 2020, the Constitutional Court tends to compromise with the language of conditional unconstitutional decisions in deciding applications for formal testing of the Job Creation Law. Second, the countries of Colombia and Indonesia show that the practice of formal testing of the Law by the Constitutional Court is something that needs to be done if there is a violation of the formation procedure by the legislator, it is just that the Colombian Constitutional Court in conducting formal testing takes a more progressive step, this is indicated by the quality and quantity of handling of formal test cases decided, on the other hand in Indonesia, the Constitutional Court seems to take a position that tends to be very limited in conducting formal testing, it even looks unfamiliar to do so, besides that the 1945 Constitution also does not provide rigid arrangements regarding the basis for formal testing of laws by the Constitutional Court.

References

Buku:

Asshiddiqie, Jimly. (2010). Perihal Undang-Undang. Jakarta: Rajawali Press.
------------------------. (2017). Konstitusi dan konstitusionalisme Indonesia Cet. 4. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika.
------------------------. (2012). Perkembangan & Konsolidasi Lembaga Negara Pasca Reformasi. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika.
I Palguna, Dewa Gede. (2013). Pengaduan Konstitusional: Upaya Hukum Terhadap Pelanggaran Hak-Hak Warga Negara, Jakarta: Sinar Grafika.
---------------------------. (2018). Mahkamah Konstitusi: Dasar Pemikiran, Kewenangan, dan Perbandingan Dengan Negara Lain, Jakarta, Konpress.
Huda, Ni’matul. (2004). Politik Ketatanegaraan Indonesia: Kajian terhadap Dinamika Perubahan UUD 1945, Yogyakarta: FH UII Press.
Levitsky, Steven dan Daniel Ziblatt. (2018). How Democracies Die, Jakarta: Kompas Gramedia.
Marzuki, Peter Mahmud. (2010). Penelitian Hukum, Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media Group.
Mertokusumo, Sudikno. (2014). Penemuan Hukum, Yogyakarta: Cahaya Atma.
Munir Fuady. (2009). Teori Negara Hukum Modern (Rechtstaat). Bandung: Refika Aditama.
Sajo, Andras dan Renata Uitz. (2017). The Constitution of Freedom: An Introduction of Legal Constitutionalism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jurnal Ilmiah/Laporan Penelitian:

Ali Safaat, Muchamad dkk. (2017). Pola Penafsiran Konstitusi dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Periode 2003-2008 dan 2009-2013. Jurnal Konstitusi, Volume 14, Nomor 2.
Andiraharja, Diyar Ginanjar. (2021). Judicial Review oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi sebagai Ajudikasi Konstitusional di Indonesia, Jurnal Khazanah Hukum, Volume 3, Nomor 2.
Bernal, Carlos. (2013). Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments in The Case Study of Colombia: An Analysis of The Justification and Meaning of The Constitutional Replacement Doctrine. International Journal of Constitutional Law, Volume 11, Nomor 2.
Desyanti dkk. (2021). The Original Intent of Settings Judicial Review of Local Regulations in Indonesia. International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understandingi, Volume 8, Nomor 9.
Fajarwati, Meirina. (2016). Upaya Hukum Untuk Melindungi Hak Konstitusional Warga Negara Melalui Mahkamah Konstitusi. Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia, Volume 13, Nomor 3.
Firmansyah R, Adithya Tri. (2023). Partisipasi Masyarakat dalam Judicial Review di Mahkamah Konstitusi Sebagai Wujud Menguatkan Prinsip Negara Hukum Kesejahteraan. Jurnal Esensi Hukum, Volume 5, Nomor 1.
Galih, Pratiwi Lintang. (2020). Kewenangan Uji Material (Judicial Review) terhadap Ketetapan Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi. Jurnal Sasi, Volume 26, Nomor 4.
Pahlevi, Reza dan Yazid Bustomi. (2022). Hak Judicial Review Warga Negara Asing dalam Sistem Hukum Indonesia. Istinbath: Jurnal Hukum, Volume 19, Nomor 1.
Rishan, Idul. (2021). Konsep Pengujian Formil Undang-Undang di Mahkamah Konstitusi, Jurnal Konstitusi, Volume 18, Nomor 1.
Sungkar, Lailani dkk. (2021). Urgensi Pengujian Formil di Indonesia: Pengujian Legitimasi dan Validitas, Jurnal Konstitusi, Volume 18, Nomor 4.
Syuhada, Otong. (2020). Rekonstruksi Positivisme dalam Hierarki Peraturan Perundang- Undangan di Indonesia. Presumption of Law, Volume 2, Nomor 2.
Dwi, Harijanti Susi dkk. (2020). Pengujian Formil Undang-Undang Oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi: Urgensi dan Batu Uji, Laporan Penelitian Pusat Penelitian dan Pengkajian Perkara, dan Pengelolaan Perpustakaan Kepaniteraan dan Sekretariat Jenderal Mahkamah Konstitusi.

Website:

Ayomi Amindoni, UU Cipta Kerja: Kesalahan 'Fatal' Pasal-Pasal Omnibus Law Akibat 'Proses Legislasi Ugal-Ugalan’, Apakah UU Layak Dibatalkan?, https://www.bbc.com/indonesia/indonesia-54768000, diakses pada 20 Februari 2023.
Rini Kustiasih, Pembahasan RUU di Hotel Jauhkan Legislasi dari Publik, https://www.kompas.id/baca/polhuk/2020/09/29/pembahasan-ruu-di-hotel-jauhkan-legislasi-dari-publik, diakses pada tanggal 23 Maret 2023.
Tsarina Maharani, Pakar Hukum: Pembentukan UU Cipta Kerja Merupakan Proses Legislasi Terburuk, https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2020/10/17/11113141/pakar-hukum-pembentukan-uu-cipta-kerja-merupakan-proses-legislasi-terburuk, diakses pada tanggal 20 Februari 2023.

Peraturan Perundang-Undangan/Putusan:

Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945.
Constitution Colombia 1991.
Undang-undang Nomor 8 Tahun 2011 tentang Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 24 Tahun 2003 tentang Mahkamah Konstitusi.
Peraturan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 6 Tahun 2005 tentang Pedoman Beracara dalam Perkara Pengujian Undang-Undang.
Putusan Nomor 91/PUU-XVIII/2020 tentang Pengujian Formil Undang-Undang Cipta Kerja.

Published

2024-08-02

How to Cite

Firmansyah, A. T., Aritonang, S. D. P., Pritasari, A. Z., Zulmi, M. N., & Alivia, I. A. (2024). Pengujian Formil Peraturan Antara Indonesia dan Kolombia. Widya Yuridika, 7(2), 337–352. https://doi.org/10.31328/wy.v7i2.5010