PENENTUAN JENIS PRODUK HUKUM DALAM PELAKSANAAN PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH AGUNG TENTANG HAK UJI MATERIL (Kajian Terhadap Tindak Lanjut Putusan Mahkamah Agung 28 P/HUM/2018)

Febriansyah Ramadhan, Sunarto Efendi, Ilham Dwi Rafiqi
{"title":"PENENTUAN JENIS PRODUK HUKUM DALAM PELAKSANAAN PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH AGUNG TENTANG HAK UJI MATERIL (Kajian Terhadap Tindak Lanjut Putusan Mahkamah Agung 28 P/HUM/2018)","authors":"Febriansyah Ramadhan, Sunarto Efendi, Ilham Dwi Rafiqi","doi":"10.33331/rechtsvinding.v11i1.850","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study examines the problem of determining the type of legal product from the implementation of the judicial review decision, as in Supreme Court Decision 28 P/HUM/2018. The research method used is normative research, with a statutory and conceptual approach. The results of the discussion are, firstly, there are dissimilarities in forming bodies and types of legal products in the object of testing and implementing decisions. The types of legal products tested are classified as primary legislation that is compiled involving 2 powers (DPRD and the Regent), while the follow-up uses legal products that are classified as subordinate legislation that is formed solely by the Regent. Second, the Regent's Regulation that follows up has no validity, because the Regent is not authorized to independently formulate general and local norms, which do not have a juridical basis in national regulations. The follow-up must use a level product, namely Regional Regulations.","PeriodicalId":31939,"journal":{"name":"Jurnal Rechts Vinding Media Pembinaan Hukum Nasional","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jurnal Rechts Vinding Media Pembinaan Hukum Nasional","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33331/rechtsvinding.v11i1.850","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

This study examines the problem of determining the type of legal product from the implementation of the judicial review decision, as in Supreme Court Decision 28 P/HUM/2018. The research method used is normative research, with a statutory and conceptual approach. The results of the discussion are, firstly, there are dissimilarities in forming bodies and types of legal products in the object of testing and implementing decisions. The types of legal products tested are classified as primary legislation that is compiled involving 2 powers (DPRD and the Regent), while the follow-up uses legal products that are classified as subordinate legislation that is formed solely by the Regent. Second, the Regent's Regulation that follows up has no validity, because the Regent is not authorized to independently formulate general and local norms, which do not have a juridical basis in national regulations. The follow-up must use a level product, namely Regional Regulations.
根据材料程序要求进行一般产品开发
本研究考察了根据最高法院第28 P/HUM/2018号决定中的司法审查决定的执行情况来确定法律产品类型的问题。所使用的研究方法是规范性研究,采用法定和概念方法。讨论的结果是,首先,在测试和执行决策的对象上,法律产品的形成主体和类型存在差异。测试的法律产品类型被归类为涉及2个权力(DPRD和Regent)的主要立法,而后续使用的法律产品被归类为仅由Regent形成的附属立法。其次,后续的《摄政王条例》无效,因为摄政王无权独立制定一般和地方规范,而这些规范在国家法规中没有法律依据。后续行动必须使用一个水平产品,即区域法规。
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
9
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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