Constitutional Review (CONSREV) is an international journal published by the Center for Research and Case Analysis and Library Management of the Constitutional Court of Indonesia. The fundamental aim of this journal is to disseminate research and conceptual analysis which focus on constitutional issues.
In the last edition of Year 2018, six articles are presented by constitutional law scholars from various universities and institutions, as follows:
“Megapolitical Cases before the Constitutional Court of Indonesia since 2004: An Empirical Study” by Associate Professor Björn Dressel (Australian National University) and Professor Tomoo Inoue (Seikei University). DOI: https://doi.org/10.31078/consrev421.
“Korean Constitutional Court and Constitutionalism in Political Dynamics: Focusing on Presidential Impeachment” by Jin Wook Kim (The Constitutional Court of Korea). DOI: https://doi.org/10.31078/consrev423.
“Referencing International Human Rights Law in Indonesian Constitutional Adjudication” by Bisariyadi (The Constitutional Court of Indonesia). DOI: https://doi.org/10.31078/consrev424.
“Constitutional Retrogression in Indonesia Under President Joko Widodo’s Government: What Can the Constitutional Court Do?” by Abdurrachman Satrio (University of Padjadjaran). DOI: https://doi.org/10.31078/consrev425.
“Harmonization of Regulation Based on Pancasila Values Through the Constitutional Court of Indonesia” by Tedi Sudrajat (Jenderal Soedirman University). DOI: https://doi.org/10.31078/consrev426.
The Editors expect that this issue might give some new insight and understanding on recent developments on constitutional law and constitutional courts in broader nature to our readers. The full issue of this edition can also be downloaded here: https://bit.ly/2U7sqIQ. Please feel free to share this journal with others.
PERUBAHAN POLITIK HUKUM PENGUJIAN PERATURAN DAERAH PASCA PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI
Pan Mohamad Faiz
Pusat Penelitian dan Pengkajian Perkara Mahkamah Konstitusi RI
Pada medio 2016, Pemerintah melalui Kementerian Dalam Negeri mencabut dan merevisi sebanyak 3.143 Peraturan Daerah (Perda), Peraturan Kepala Daerah (Perkada), dan Peraturan Mendagri (Kemendagri, 2016). Umumnya, Perda dan Perkada yang dicabut atau direvisi tersebut berkaitan dengan investasi, retribusi, dan pajak. Menteri Dalam Negeri dan Gubernur sebagai wakil Pemerintah Pusat dapat membatalkan Perda dan Perkada tersebut karena telah diberikan wewenang berdasarkan Pasal 251 ayat (1) dan ayat (2) UU Nomor 23 Tahun 2004 tentang Pemerintahan Daerah (selanjutnya disebut UU Pemda). Alasan utama Pemerintah untuk melakukan deregulasi Perda dan Perkada tersebut, sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 250 UU Pemda, karena dinilai bertentangan dengan ketentuan peraturan perundang-undangan yang lebih tinggi dan kepentingan umum, khususnya telah menyebabkan terganggunya akses terhadap pelayanan publik dan/atau terganggunya kegiatan ekonomi untuk meningkatkan kesejahteraan masyarakat.
LEGAL PROBLEMS OF DUALISM OF JUDICIAL REVIEW SYSTEM IN INDONESIA
* Published in Jurnal Dinamika Hukum, Vol. 16, No. 2, May 2016, pp. 187-195
Abstract: Indonesia implements dualism of judicial review system because there are two different judicial institutions that are granted the authority to review laws and regulations, namely the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court. This research aims to analyse the problems caused by the dualism of judicial review system. It found two main legal problems of the current system. First, there is an inconsistency of decisions concerning judicial review cases for the same legal issues decided by the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court. Second, there is no mechanism to review the constitutionality of People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR) decisions and regulations under the level of law. Based on these findings, this research suggests that the authority to review all laws and regulations should be integrated under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court.
Keywords: Constitutional Court, Constitutional Review, Judicial Review, Indonesian Legal System
A PROSPECT AND CHALLENGES FOR ADOPTING CONSTITUTIONAL COMPLAINT AND CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION IN THE INDONESIAN CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
* Published in Constitutional Review, Vol. 2, No. 1, May 2016, pp. 103-128
Abstract: A jurisdiction of the Indonesian Constitutional Court concerning constitutional adjudication is only limited to review the constitutionality of national law. There is no mechanism for challenging any decision or action made by public authorities that violate fundamental rights enshrined in the Indonesian Constitution. This article argues that constitutional complaint and constitutional question might be adopted as new jurisdictions of the Indonesian Constitutional Court in order to strengthen the protection of fundamental rights of its citizen. It also identifies main problems that will be faced by the Constitutional Court in exercising constitutional complaint and constitutional question. For instance, the Court will be burdened with too many cases as experienced by other countries. A clear mechanism for filtering applications lodged to the Constitutional Court and the time limit for deciding cases are important elements that have to be regulated to overcome the problems. In addition, the institutional structure of the Constitutional Court has to be improved, particularly to support its decision-making process.