Konstruksi Kewenangan Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat dalam Memberikan Keterangan pada Perkara Pengujian Undang-Undang di Mahkamah Konstitusi

M. Hamdi, Xavier Nugraha, Gioliano Putra
{"title":"Konstruksi Kewenangan Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat dalam Memberikan Keterangan pada Perkara Pengujian Undang-Undang di Mahkamah Konstitusi","authors":"M. Hamdi, Xavier Nugraha, Gioliano Putra","doi":"10.31328/wy.v6i2.4255","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the light of this background, the focus of this article is on 3 (three) issues namely: the MPR's authority to interpret the constitution, the construction of ius constitutum providing statements by the MPR in reviewing laws in the Constitutional Court, and the reconstruction of the ius constituendum model of providing information on requests for review of laws law in the Constitutional Court. This article is a legal research with a reform-oriented research type with statutory, case, and conceptual approaches. Based on this research, several things were found, namely: (1) the People’s Consultative Assembly has the authority to interpret the constitution based on Article 3 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia; (2) the construction of the ius constitutum position of the People’s Consultative Assembly in the petition for review of a law at the Constitutional Court is derogated by the exclusion of the MPR as giving explanation in Constitutional Court Law Number 6 Year 2005; (3) at the ius constituendum level, the involvement of the People’s Consultative Assembly in carrying out originalism interpretation of the constitution can be realized through the provision of explanation in a tripartite manner, namely the Government and/or the DPR as legislators and the People’s Consultative Assembly as the framers of the constitution. This article provides recommendations for the need to amend the provisions of the Constitutional Court's procedural law, so as to provide space for substantive participation for the MPR in providing an interpretation of its constitution.","PeriodicalId":106813,"journal":{"name":"Widya Yuridika","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Widya Yuridika","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31328/wy.v6i2.4255","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the light of this background, the focus of this article is on 3 (three) issues namely: the MPR's authority to interpret the constitution, the construction of ius constitutum providing statements by the MPR in reviewing laws in the Constitutional Court, and the reconstruction of the ius constituendum model of providing information on requests for review of laws law in the Constitutional Court. This article is a legal research with a reform-oriented research type with statutory, case, and conceptual approaches. Based on this research, several things were found, namely: (1) the People’s Consultative Assembly has the authority to interpret the constitution based on Article 3 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia; (2) the construction of the ius constitutum position of the People’s Consultative Assembly in the petition for review of a law at the Constitutional Court is derogated by the exclusion of the MPR as giving explanation in Constitutional Court Law Number 6 Year 2005; (3) at the ius constituendum level, the involvement of the People’s Consultative Assembly in carrying out originalism interpretation of the constitution can be realized through the provision of explanation in a tripartite manner, namely the Government and/or the DPR as legislators and the People’s Consultative Assembly as the framers of the constitution. This article provides recommendations for the need to amend the provisions of the Constitutional Court's procedural law, so as to provide space for substantive participation for the MPR in providing an interpretation of its constitution.
宪法法院赋予人民司法权的建设,以就检验宪法法院的法律案件发表评论
在此背景下,本文主要从三个方面展开论述,即:人民代表大会对宪法的解释权、人民代表大会在宪法法院审查法律时提供陈述的宪制构建、人民代表大会在宪法法院审查法律请求时提供信息的宪制模式重构。本文是一项以改革为导向的法律研究,采用成文法、判例法和概念法。研究发现:(1)根据1945年印度尼西亚共和国宪法第3条第(1)款,人民协商会议有权解释宪法;(2)《2005年第6号宪法法院法》将人民协商会议作为解释排除在外,从而削弱了人民协商会议在宪法法院审查法律请愿中的宪法地位;(3)在宪法层面,人民协商会议参与宪法原旨解释可以通过政府和(或)人民代表大会作为立法者和人民协商会议作为宪法制定者的三方解释方式来实现。本文就修改宪法法院程序法条款的必要性提出了建议,以便为人民法院在解释其宪法方面的实质性参与提供空间。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信