The Integration of Judicial Review in Indonesia

Airlangga Gama Shakti, Maharani Wicahyaning Tyas, M. Farid
{"title":"The Integration of Judicial Review in Indonesia","authors":"Airlangga Gama Shakti, Maharani Wicahyaning Tyas, M. Farid","doi":"10.24815/sklj.v6i3.26940","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The judicial review is the essence of constitutional justice. At this time, Indonesia has adopted a dualism system in judicial review, which creates problems. This study aims to analyze the current judicial review system and examine the integration of judicial review by the Constitutional Court as ius constituendum. In reviewing the legal problems in this research, the Constitutional Court used the juridical-normative method. Furthermore, this research also uses a regulatory approach and a comparative study in Austria and Germany. The results show that Articles 24A and 24C of the Indonesia Constitutionhave delegated the Supreme Court the right to judicial review of regulations under the law, while the Constitutional Court has judicial review against the Indonesia Constitution. This raises problems, from practice to the difficulty of guarding the hierarchy of norms from Regional Regulations to the Indonesia Constitution. Judicial review at the Supreme Court also still has problems, especially transparency and accountability, because they have a closed nature. If analyzed in Austria, the Constitutional Court has the authority to judicial review the constitutionality of laws and the legality of administrative regulations (policies). In Germany, the Federal Constitutional Court has the authority to judicial review the law against the constitution. Therefore, there is a need for an urgency to integrate the judicial review by the Constitutional Court through the Amendment to the Indonesia Constitutionand several revisions to the regulations.","PeriodicalId":142500,"journal":{"name":"Syiah Kuala Law Journal","volume":"115 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Syiah Kuala Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24815/sklj.v6i3.26940","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

The judicial review is the essence of constitutional justice. At this time, Indonesia has adopted a dualism system in judicial review, which creates problems. This study aims to analyze the current judicial review system and examine the integration of judicial review by the Constitutional Court as ius constituendum. In reviewing the legal problems in this research, the Constitutional Court used the juridical-normative method. Furthermore, this research also uses a regulatory approach and a comparative study in Austria and Germany. The results show that Articles 24A and 24C of the Indonesia Constitutionhave delegated the Supreme Court the right to judicial review of regulations under the law, while the Constitutional Court has judicial review against the Indonesia Constitution. This raises problems, from practice to the difficulty of guarding the hierarchy of norms from Regional Regulations to the Indonesia Constitution. Judicial review at the Supreme Court also still has problems, especially transparency and accountability, because they have a closed nature. If analyzed in Austria, the Constitutional Court has the authority to judicial review the constitutionality of laws and the legality of administrative regulations (policies). In Germany, the Federal Constitutional Court has the authority to judicial review the law against the constitution. Therefore, there is a need for an urgency to integrate the judicial review by the Constitutional Court through the Amendment to the Indonesia Constitutionand several revisions to the regulations.
印尼司法审查的整合
司法审查是宪法司法的本质。此时,印度尼西亚在司法审查中采取了二元论制度,这就产生了问题。本研究旨在分析现行司法审查制度,并检视宪法法院将司法审查整合为宪法。在审查本研究中的法律问题时,宪法法院采用了司法规范的方法。此外,本研究还采用了监管方法,并在奥地利和德国进行了比较研究。结果表明,印尼宪法第24A条和第24C条赋予了最高法院对法律规定进行司法审查的权利,而宪法法院对印尼宪法规定进行司法审查。这就产生了一些问题,从实践到难以维护从《区域条例》到《印度尼西亚宪法》的规范等级。最高法院的司法审查也仍然存在问题,特别是透明度和问责制,因为它们具有封闭的性质。如果在奥地利分析,宪法法院有权对法律的合宪性和行政法规(政策)的合法性进行司法审查。在德国,联邦宪法法院有权对违反宪法的法律进行司法审查。因此,迫切需要通过《印度尼西亚宪法修正案》和若干条例修订来整合宪法法院的司法审查。
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