MENGKAJI LEGALITAS PERATURAN MAHKAMAH AGUNG NOMOR 2 TAHUN 2012 TENTANG PENYESUAIAN BATASAN TINDAK PIDANA RINGAN DAN JUMLAH DENDA DALAM KUHP

Moh Rifki
{"title":"MENGKAJI LEGALITAS PERATURAN MAHKAMAH AGUNG NOMOR 2 TAHUN 2012 TENTANG PENYESUAIAN BATASAN TINDAK PIDANA RINGAN DAN JUMLAH DENDA DALAM KUHP","authors":"Moh Rifki","doi":"10.24912/ERAHUKUM.V16I1.2377","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Besides court function, the Supreme Court also has rule function, counseling function, supervisor function, and administrative function. Judges as an organ on Supreme Court must be differentiated with Supreme Court as a State Institution. Judges can be a law maker on their verdict (Judge made-law), because Judges are not only a mouthpiece of the law (la bouche de la loi), instead they also considered to know the law (Ius Curia Novit). However, the Regulation of Supreme Court as an implementation of its rule function can’t be stated as a law making (rechtsvinding), because the Regulation of Supreme Court is not a part of Law Making, but rather Rule Making. Regulation of Supreme Court Number 2 Year 2012 about Adjustment on the Limitation of Minor Crime and Fine on KUHP is one of the regulation that has been made by the Supreme Court as a State Institution. This article will analyze the legality of the Regulation of Supreme Court based on the authority given by the act or constitution, and also analyze it from the regulation concerning the drafting of act.  ","PeriodicalId":241921,"journal":{"name":"Era Hukum - Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Hukum","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Era Hukum - Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Hukum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24912/ERAHUKUM.V16I1.2377","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

Besides court function, the Supreme Court also has rule function, counseling function, supervisor function, and administrative function. Judges as an organ on Supreme Court must be differentiated with Supreme Court as a State Institution. Judges can be a law maker on their verdict (Judge made-law), because Judges are not only a mouthpiece of the law (la bouche de la loi), instead they also considered to know the law (Ius Curia Novit). However, the Regulation of Supreme Court as an implementation of its rule function can’t be stated as a law making (rechtsvinding), because the Regulation of Supreme Court is not a part of Law Making, but rather Rule Making. Regulation of Supreme Court Number 2 Year 2012 about Adjustment on the Limitation of Minor Crime and Fine on KUHP is one of the regulation that has been made by the Supreme Court as a State Institution. This article will analyze the legality of the Regulation of Supreme Court based on the authority given by the act or constitution, and also analyze it from the regulation concerning the drafting of act.  
回顾2012年最高法院关于调整轻罪限制和刑法罚金的法律条文
除了法院职能外,最高法院还具有规则职能、咨询职能、监督职能和行政职能。作为最高法院机构的法官必须与作为国家机构的最高法院区分开来。法官可以在他们的判决中成为法律制定者(Judge made-law),因为法官不仅是法律的喉舌(la bouche de la loi),相反,他们也被认为是了解法律(Ius Curia Novit)。但是,最高法院的规制作为其规则功能的一种实现,并不能被称为立法,因为最高法院的规制不是法律制定的一部分,而是规则制定。最高法院2012年第2号《关于调整未成年人犯罪和罚款限额的规定》是最高法院作为国家机关制定的规定之一。本文将从法律或宪法赋予最高法院的权力来分析最高法院条例的合法性,并从有关法律起草的规定来分析最高法院条例的合法性。
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