The Political Context of Judicial Review in Indonesia

Indonesia Constitutional Court will celebrate 12th birthday this August 2015, and it cannot be denied that the Court play significant role in securing democracy in Indonesia. In exercising their authorities, including the election result dispute and judicial review, the Court continue to affirm institutional judicial legitimacy and pursue their role to guard 1945 Constitution and continue to do so. The first Chief Justice Jimly showed how within five years of the Court's creation, he could strategically maximise its momentum and build up the Court as a respectful institution. The Chief Justice Mahfud MD was then elected to reduce the judicial activism started by Jimly's bench. However, against promises and expectations, Mahfud MD brought the Court to a level far beyond the imagination of the Constitution drafters. Parliament and President tried to limit Court's authority, not ones, and the Court able to overcome those constrain. Current various available studies observed only how the Court issued their decision and solely focus to the impact of the decision. Scholars slightly ignore that study about the Court, by reducing other constitutional actor in Indonesia, produce study about the Court itself isn't complete. In fact, political environment in which the Court operated at that time is one of utmost importance the strengthen of the Court institutional legitimacy. This paper is trying to discover the rise of the Indonesia Constitutional Court, not from what the Court did, but from political environment outside the court. Political parties realize that the Court is the only institution that act as political dispute resolution among them. Political parties maturity and political constraint are the key factor that support the development of the Court's institutional power

Indonesia Constitutional Court Constitutional Interpretation Methodology (2003-2008)

Nine Indonesian Constitutional Justices have the authority to annul a law drafted by 550 Parliament members and the President. The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia (“the Court”), particularly in deciding cases of judicial review, has the capability to declare words, sentences, paragraphs, articles or the law unconstitutional. Consequently, it is essential for the Court to take into account legal arguments. The fundamental element of these legal arguments is constitutional interpretation, which serves as a parameter in determining constitutionality of the laws. However, in exercising its authority, the Court needs to interpret the Constitution as a basis for deciding a case. The standards for determining the constitutionality of a law must be the text of the Constitution, not what the judges would prefer the Constitution to mean. Constitutional supremacy necessarily assumes that a superior rule is what the Constitution says it is, not what the judges prefer it to be. [Craig R. Ducat: E3]. The Court period 2003–2008 were the Court\u27s the formative years, and as such are important to understand the methodology and interpretative approaches adopted by the Court. Many observers of the Court\u27s early decisions are still unsure of the overarching approach and methodology adopted by the Court. Thus, there is a need for a close analysis and criticism of the Court\u27s early decisions to determine which methods and approaches it has adopted and whether these are appropriate in the Indonesian context. The Court has openly referred to the experiences of foreign jurisdiction in constitutional law, and therefore it would be appropriate to analyze the court\u27s decisions in a broader comparative context of constitutional interpretative approaches from around the world

The Role of the Elections Supervisory Agency to Contend Hoax and Hate Speech in the Course of 2019 Indonesian General Election

AbstractThe Elections Supervisory Agency, in Indonesia known as Bawaslu (Badan Pengawas Pemilu), is the supervisor for all elections in Indonesia. The Agency has many roles, authorities, and obligations. One of their authorities is to oversee the activities of campaigns in various platforms, including the social media. The Agency has an authority to ensure and to keep the election participants not to violate campaign rules. They are obliged to ensure no misuse of social media, considering that the social media has been platforms to spread hoaxes and hate speeches–activities that can disrupt and undermine the ongoing democratic process. This study aims to explain the achievements of Bawaslu in carrying out the process of monitoring social media, the obstacles, the findings, the enforcements, and the importance of the role of state institutions. Prior to the prosecution, such as taking down media content, account deletion, or criminal prosecution, it is necessary to pay attention to the existing legal rules. This study performed analysis employing qualitative method with juridical-empirical approach. The data consisted of the spread of hoaxes and hate speeches that are spread on social media during the course of the 2019 Election stages. Peran Badan Pengawas Pemilu Menangani Berita Bohong dan Ujaran Kebencian dalam Pemilu 2019Abstrak Dalam kedudukannya sebagai pengawas pemilu, Badan Pengawas Pemilu (Bawaslu) tidak sekadar berwenang untuk mengawasi pelaksanaan kampanye melalui media sosial oleh para peserta pemilu untuk tidak melanggar aturan kampanye. Bawaslu berkewajiban memastikan agar tidak ada penyalahgunaan media sosial dengan berita bohong (hoax) dan ujaran kebencian (hate speech), yang dapat menganggu dan merusak proses demokrasi yang berlangsung. Akan tetapi pengawasan di media sosial memiliki persoalan tersendiri karena dibutuhkan keseimbangan antara pembatasan kebebasan berbicara dan aturan mengenai ujaran kebencian. Artikel ini berusaha untuk menjelaskan, apa saja yang sudah dilakukan oleh Bawaslu dalam melakukan proses pengawasan di media sosial, hambatan yang dialami, temuan yang ditindak lanjutin dan pentingnya peran antar lembaga negara. Sebelum dilakukan proses penindakan baik penurunan konten, penghapusan akun serta proses pidana, perlunya memperhatikan aturan hukum yang ada. Analisa dalam tulisan ini ditulis berdasarkan kajian kualitatif dengan pendekatan yuridis-empiris dan penyebaran isu kebohongan dan ujaran kebencian yang ada di media sosial selama proses pemilu 2019 berlangsung.Kata kunci: hoaks dan ujaran kebencian, kebebasan berbicara, pengawasan pemilu. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22304/pjih.v7n2.a

Dimensi hukum pelanggaran administrasi pemilu

xviii.; 128 hal.; ill.; 19 c

Indonesia Constitutional Court Constitutional Interpretation Methodology (2003-2008)

Nine Indonesian Constitutional Justices have the authority to annul a law drafted by 550 Parliament members and the President. The Constitutional  Court of the Republic of Indonesia (“the Court”), particularly in deciding cases  of judicial review, has the capability to declare words, sentences, paragraphs, articles or the law unconstitutional. Consequently, it is essential for the Court  to take into account legal arguments. The fundamental element of these legal arguments is constitutional interpretation, which serves as a parameter in determining constitutionality of the laws. However, in exercising its authority, the Court needs to interpret the Constitution as a  basis  for deciding  a case.  The standards for determining the constitutionality of a law must be the text of the Constitution, not what the judges would prefer the Constitution to mean. Constitutional supremacy necessarily assumes that a superior rule is what the Constitution says it is, not what the judges prefer it to be. [Craig R. Ducat: E3]. The Court period 2003–2008 were the Court’s the formative years, and as such are important to understand the methodology and interpretative approaches adopted by the Court. Many observers of the Court’s early decisions are still unsure of the overarching approach and methodology adopted by the Court. Thus, there is a need  for a close analysis and criticism of  the Court’s early decisions   to determine which methods and approaches it has adopted and whether these are appropriate in the Indonesian context. The Court has openly referred to the experiences of foreign jurisdiction in constitutional law, and therefore it would be appropriate to analyze the court’s decisions in a broader comparative context of constitutional interpretative approaches from around the  world

ANALISIS KRITIK TERHADAP PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI NOMOR 36/PUU-X/2012

<p>This article discusses the Constitutional Court Judgment No. 36/PUU-X/2012. In this judgment, the majority of the Justices decided that the 1945 Constitution requires the State to exercise direct control over the upstream oil and gas activities. We will criticise the Justices’ deliberation that underlies the decision. The Court failed to shed light on questions pertaining to the legal rationale for ‘five activities’ doctrine that form the framework of ‘State control’ per Article 33 (3) of the Constitution and to the procedures in determining the priority ranking. In addition, the majority Justices are deemed to have left the question of whether the State is able to manage oil and gas industry unanswered. We will also describe how this judgment might result in the declining interest of foreign investors to invest in Indonesia, particularly inthe field of exploration and exploitation of natural resources.</p><p> </p><p>Artikel ini membahas Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 36/PUU-X/2012. Dalam putusan tersebut, mayoritas Hakim Konstitusi memutus bahwa UUD NRI Tahun 1945 mensyaratkan Negara secara langsungmenguasai kegiatan hulu Migas. Diuraikan kritik terhadap pertimbangan hukum dari putusan, yakni kelalaian Mahkamah tidak menjelaskan dari mana asal ‘lima kegiatan’ sebagai komponen ‘penguasaan negara’ dalam Pasal 33(3) UUD NRI Tahun 1945, bagaimana menentukan prioritas rangkingnya, dan perihal mayoritas Hakim Konstitusi yang tidak menentukan apakah Negara mampu mengelola industri Migas. Selain itu, diuraikan pula bahwa putusan tersebut berpotensi mengurangi ketertarikan investor asing untuk menanam modalnya di Indonesia, khususnya di bidang eksplorasi dan eksploitasi sumberdaya alam.</p

ANALISIS KRITIK TERHADAP PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI NOMOR 36/PUU-X/2012

This article discusses the Constitutional Court Judgment No. 36/PUU-X/2012. In this judgment, the majority of the Justices decided that the 1945 Constitution requires the State to exercise direct control over the upstream oil and gas activities. Wewill criticise the Justices' deliberation that underlies the decision. The Court failed to shed light on questions pertaining to the legal rationale for 'five activities' doctrine that form the framework of 'State control 'per Article 33 (3) of the Constitution and to the procedures in determining the priority ranking. In addition, the majority Justices are deemed to have left the question of whether the State is able to manage oil and gas industry unanswered. We will also describe how this judgment might result in the declining interest offoreign investors to invest in Indonesia, particularly in the field of exploration and exploitation of natural resources. Artikel ini membahas Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 36/PUU-X/2012. Dalam putusan tersebut, mayoritasHakimKonstitusimemutusbahwa DUDNRI Tahun 1945mensyaratkanNegara secaralangsung menguasai kegiatan hulu Migas. Diuraikan kritik terhadap pertimbangan hukum dari putusan, yakni kelalaian Mahkamah tidak menjelaskan dari mana asal 'lima kegiatan' sebagai komponen "penguasaan negara' dalam PasaI33(3) UUD NRI Tahun 1945, bagaimana menentukan prioritas rangkingnya, dan perihal mayoritas Hakim Konstitusi yang tidak menentukan apakah Negara mampu mengelola industri Migas. Selain itu, diuraikan pula bahwa putusan tersebut berpotensi mengurangi ketertarikan investor asing untuk menanam modalnya di Indonesia, khususnya di bidang eksplorasi dan eksploitasi sumber daya alam

Indonesian Constitutional Politics 2003-2013

In 2011, the Indonesian Parliament enacted Law 8 of 2011 amending Law 24 of 2003 on the Indonesian Constitutional Court. The amendment was intended to limit the Court’s jurisdiction after a period of sustained activism. The Court responded by declaring substantial parts of the amending law constitutionally invalid. This dissertation examines the timing and nature of this unsuccessful ‘attack’ on the Court’s authority and the reasons behind the apparent ease with which the Court was able to thwart it. Two broad sets of theorisations of judicial power are tested: those that focus on external factors or background political conditions, and those that focus on internal factors or the issue of judicial agency. The dissertation’s central finding is that no single theorization adequately accounts for the events of 2011. Rather, a combination of theoretical perspectives is required. From 2003-2008, the Court’s first Chief Justice, Jimly Asshiddiqie, exploited the window of opportunity provided by the groundswell of popular support for constitutionalism in Indonesia to build the Court’s public reputation. His successor, Mahfud MD, was appointed to the Court on promises of returning it to its original jurisdiction. Instead, Mahfud MD pushed the Court in an even more activist direction, dispensing with Asshiddiqie’s careful, scholarly style and introducing a ‘substantive justice’ approach that further exacerbated the Court’s relationship with the political branches. That change explains the timing of the 2011 attack. The Court’s capacity to resist the attack, in turn, was a function of the fragmentation of Indonesian party politics. While it was one thing to construct the political coalition required to pass the 2011 reforms, it was another to amend the Constitution to counteract the Court’s decisions.While the Court emerges from this story as an apparently strong institution, its somewhat dogmatic stance on judicial independence leaves cause for concern. Paradoxically, the Court’s very success in contributing to the strengthening of Indonesia’s constitutional democracy means that it needs to develop a new understanding of judicial independence, one that is more sensitive to democratic preferences. The thesis concludes by explaining this idea and speculating about the future trajectory of Indonesian constitutional politics