POLITICAL STUDY OF LAW LAW NUMBER 8 OF 1981 CONCERNING THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE IN TERMS OF PRETRIAL LEGAL ASPECTS

Lewiaro Laia
{"title":"POLITICAL STUDY OF LAW LAW NUMBER 8 OF 1981 CONCERNING THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE IN TERMS OF PRETRIAL LEGAL ASPECTS","authors":"Lewiaro Laia","doi":"10.56107/penalaw.v1i2.43","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The development of the authority of pretrial institutions in Indonesia begins with increasing the pretrial authority to the authority of investigators to be able to re-establish legal subjects (persons and / or legal entities) as suspects with the same evidence. The state organ that plays a dominant role in determining changes to the authority of pretrial institutions in Indonesia is the Constitutional Court (MK) which in terms of the aspect of state organ power is in the judicial branch of power (not executive or even legislative). It's just that the legal products stipulated by the Constitutional Court are more in the nature of forming laws and regulations which are the authority of the legislative and executive state organs. Since its inception, the Constitutional Court has been designed to oversee the constitution in the sense of keeping the law consistent, in line, and not contrary to the Constitution. In this case, there is a kind of constitutionalism barrier that strictly limits the Constitutional Court as a constitutional judiciary not to interfere in the realm of legislative power. Therefore, as a judicial institution, the Constitutional Court in principle should only state that articles/paragraphs/parts or all laws are contrary or not contrary to the constitution. In such duties and authorities, the Constitutional Court should not be allowed to make decisions of a regulatory nature, should not cancel laws or the contents of laws that the Constitution declares open (handed over arrangements to the legislature), and should not also make decisions that are ultra petita (let alone those that are positive legislature). \n ","PeriodicalId":281598,"journal":{"name":"PENA LAW: International Journal of Law","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PENA LAW: International Journal of Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56107/penalaw.v1i2.43","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The development of the authority of pretrial institutions in Indonesia begins with increasing the pretrial authority to the authority of investigators to be able to re-establish legal subjects (persons and / or legal entities) as suspects with the same evidence. The state organ that plays a dominant role in determining changes to the authority of pretrial institutions in Indonesia is the Constitutional Court (MK) which in terms of the aspect of state organ power is in the judicial branch of power (not executive or even legislative). It's just that the legal products stipulated by the Constitutional Court are more in the nature of forming laws and regulations which are the authority of the legislative and executive state organs. Since its inception, the Constitutional Court has been designed to oversee the constitution in the sense of keeping the law consistent, in line, and not contrary to the Constitution. In this case, there is a kind of constitutionalism barrier that strictly limits the Constitutional Court as a constitutional judiciary not to interfere in the realm of legislative power. Therefore, as a judicial institution, the Constitutional Court in principle should only state that articles/paragraphs/parts or all laws are contrary or not contrary to the constitution. In such duties and authorities, the Constitutional Court should not be allowed to make decisions of a regulatory nature, should not cancel laws or the contents of laws that the Constitution declares open (handed over arrangements to the legislature), and should not also make decisions that are ultra petita (let alone those that are positive legislature).  
法律政治研究1981年第8号法,关于刑事诉讼法审前法律方面的问题
印度尼西亚审前机构权力的发展始于将审前权力增加到调查人员的权力,以便能够将法律主体(个人和/或法律实体)重新确定为具有相同证据的嫌疑人。在决定印度尼西亚审前机构权力变化方面起主导作用的国家机关是宪法法院(MK),就国家机关权力而言,宪法法院属于司法权力部门(不是行政部门,甚至也不是立法部门)。只是宪法法院规定的法律产品更具有形成法律法规的性质,是国家立法机关和执行机关的权威。自成立以来,宪法法院一直被设计为监督宪法,以保持法律的一致性、一致性和不违背宪法。在这种情况下,存在着一种宪政障碍,严格限制了宪法法院作为宪法司法机关不得干涉立法权领域。因此,宪法法院作为一个司法机构,原则上只应声明条款/段落/部分或全部法律与宪法相抵触或不相抵触。在这样的职责和权限中,宪法法院不应该做出具有监管性质的决定,不应该取消宪法宣布开放的法律或法律内容(将安排交给立法机关),也不应该做出超小的决定(更不用说积极的立法)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信