Pelindungan Hak Pilih Penyandang Disabilitas Mental dalam Pendekatan Rangkaian Proses Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 135/PUU-VIII/2015

Fajri Nursyamsi, Muhammad Nur Ramadhan
{"title":"Pelindungan Hak Pilih Penyandang Disabilitas Mental dalam Pendekatan Rangkaian Proses Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 135/PUU-VIII/2015","authors":"Fajri Nursyamsi, Muhammad Nur Ramadhan","doi":"10.55108/jap.v3i1.25","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Constitutional Court Decision Number 135 / PUU-XIII / 2015 stated that the requirement for \"not being mentally / memory disturbed\" to be registered as a voter in Law Number 8 of 2015 is unconstitutional. The decision opens a new perspective on the protection of suffrage for persons with mental disabilities, and acknowledges that mental / memory impairment conditions are not the same between one person and another. The decision is in accordance with the development of thoughts on the legal capacity of persons with disabilities using a continuum approach, which recognizing that everyone is a legal subject, but practically it is necessary to look at the person's ability to exercise their rights, especially in decision making. The Constitutional Court decision has been applied in various regulations related to elections, which cannot be separated from the efforts of disabled people organizations to implement it. However, the changes are still at the administrative level, have not resulted in a change in perspective on the recognition of the legal capacity of persons with mental disabilities. In practice, there are still cases of persons with mental disabilities who were not registered as voters so that they are forced to be unable to exercise their voting rights. Based on this explanation, it is important to analyze how the legal capacity approach for persons with mental disabilities is used in the Constitutional Court decisions Number 135 / PUU-XIII / 2015, and how this approach should be applied to ensure the protection of the suffrage rights of persons with disabilities. This legal research was conducted using a qualitative approach, using primary sources of law in the form of statutory regulations and other forms of policy, as well as secondary sources of law in the form of literature and other valid and relevant information. This study presents a discussion of the suffrage rights of persons with mental disabilities using a continuum approach that has not been discussed in previous studies, so that it is expected to be able to sharpen the implementation.","PeriodicalId":168397,"journal":{"name":"Jurnal Adhyasta Pemilu","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jurnal Adhyasta Pemilu","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55108/jap.v3i1.25","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The Constitutional Court Decision Number 135 / PUU-XIII / 2015 stated that the requirement for "not being mentally / memory disturbed" to be registered as a voter in Law Number 8 of 2015 is unconstitutional. The decision opens a new perspective on the protection of suffrage for persons with mental disabilities, and acknowledges that mental / memory impairment conditions are not the same between one person and another. The decision is in accordance with the development of thoughts on the legal capacity of persons with disabilities using a continuum approach, which recognizing that everyone is a legal subject, but practically it is necessary to look at the person's ability to exercise their rights, especially in decision making. The Constitutional Court decision has been applied in various regulations related to elections, which cannot be separated from the efforts of disabled people organizations to implement it. However, the changes are still at the administrative level, have not resulted in a change in perspective on the recognition of the legal capacity of persons with mental disabilities. In practice, there are still cases of persons with mental disabilities who were not registered as voters so that they are forced to be unable to exercise their voting rights. Based on this explanation, it is important to analyze how the legal capacity approach for persons with mental disabilities is used in the Constitutional Court decisions Number 135 / PUU-XIII / 2015, and how this approach should be applied to ensure the protection of the suffrage rights of persons with disabilities. This legal research was conducted using a qualitative approach, using primary sources of law in the form of statutory regulations and other forms of policy, as well as secondary sources of law in the form of literature and other valid and relevant information. This study presents a discussion of the suffrage rights of persons with mental disabilities using a continuum approach that has not been discussed in previous studies, so that it is expected to be able to sharpen the implementation.
精神障碍选举权的保护,在宪法法院判决后进行的一系列程序中,2015年
宪法法院第135 / PUU-XIII / 2015号决定指出,2015年第8号法律中登记为选民的“没有精神/记忆障碍”的要求是违宪的。该决定为保护精神残疾者的选举权开辟了新的视角,并承认精神/记忆障碍情况在人与人之间是不同的。这一决定符合残疾人法律行为能力思想的发展,采用连续统一体的方法,承认每个人都是法律主体,但实际上需要考虑个人行使权利的能力,特别是在决策方面。宪法法院的判决适用于与选举有关的各种条例,这与残疾人组织为执行宪法法院的判决所作的努力是分不开的。然而,这些变化仍然停留在行政一级,并没有导致对承认精神残疾者法律行为能力的看法发生变化。实际上,仍有一些精神残疾者没有登记为选民,因此他们被迫无法行使其投票权。在此基础上,分析宪法法院第135 / PUU-XIII / 2015号判决如何运用精神残疾者的法律行为能力方法,以及如何运用这一方法来确保对残疾人选举权的保护具有重要意义。这项法律研究是采用定性方法进行的,使用了以法定条例和其他形式的政策为形式的主要法律来源,以及以文献和其他有效和相关信息为形式的次要法律来源。本研究以一种连续的方法探讨智障人士的选举权,这是以往研究中未曾讨论过的,因此预期它能够加强实施。
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