1 research outputs found

    Analysis of the Supreme Court's Decision Regarding the Judicial Review of the Governor of Aceh Regulation Number 5/2018: The Siyasah Al-Qadhaiyyah Approach

    Get PDF
    This paper aims to examine the Supreme Court's (MA) Decision Number 39-P/HUM/2018 regarding the right to judicial review of the Aceh Governor's Regulation Number 5/2018 concerning the Jinayat Procedural Law. This decision relates to the petition for judicial review of the applicant regarding Article 30 of the Governor's Regulation which states that the caning is carried out in an open place at the Correctional Institution, or Detention Center, or Detention Center Branch. In essence, the Supreme Court does not accept applications from applicants. The problem is how the Supreme Court Judges consider the rejection of the request for review of the Aceh Governor Regulation, and how the siyasah al-qada'iyah analysis of the Supreme Court judge's decision. The results of the analysis that the consideration of the Supreme Court Judge in the case of the Supreme Court's decision refers to the legal standing of the applicant. According to the Supreme Court, the petitioners have absolutely no legal standing because the provisions of Article 31 paragraph (2) of Law Number 3 of 2009 concerning the Supreme Court have not been fulfilled. The applicant is in an inappropriate position and has no legal standing. The applicant is unable to prove the loss of his rights to the enactment of the Pergub. The Supreme Court judge's decision is in accordance with the siyasa al-qadha'iyyah review. The Supreme Court Justice has the right to reject, accept, or cancel regulations that have been made by the government through examining articles based on clear reasons and arguments. The Supreme Court in has very clearly and unequivocally stated its considerations in rejecting the application. The refusal is in accordance with the rules of fiqh, requiring that a decision must be accompanied by certain arguments (al-dalil). The decision of the supreme judge is also determined based on considerations of benefit
    corecore