{"title":"《宪法判例法》的刑事视角","authors":"F. Faisal, M. Rustamaji","doi":"10.20885/iustum.vol27.iss3.art2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The discussion regarding a single forum for advocates has been widely analyzed, but after the issuance of the Letter of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Number 73 / KMA / HK.01 / IX / 2015, the concept of a single container still leaves big questions. One of the questions in the realm of criminal law is whether the letter of the Chief Justice that allows an advocate organization other than PERADI to propose an Advocate oath to the High Court can be categorized as an act against criminal law and can be held criminally responsible at the same time? This type of normative legal research uses a conceptual approach and a case approach, especially with regard to judicial reviews. The collection of legal materials is carried out by studying the literature on primary legal materials and secondary legal materials. The results of the study concluded that the issuance of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court No. 73/2015 which allowed advocacy organizations other than PERADI to propose an advocate's oath to the High Court could lead to acts against material criminal law. However, it is difficult to realize criminal liability for acts against criminal law due to the incomplete formulation, especially regarding the concept of contempt of court.","PeriodicalId":239318,"journal":{"name":"Jurnal Hukum Ius Quia Iustum","volume":"151 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Perspektif Hukum Pidana Dalam Polemik Pengajuan Sumpah Advokat: Telaah Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 35/PUU-XVII/2018 Atas Surat Ketua Mahkamah Agung RI Nomor 73/KMA/HK.01/IX/2015\",\"authors\":\"F. Faisal, M. Rustamaji\",\"doi\":\"10.20885/iustum.vol27.iss3.art2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The discussion regarding a single forum for advocates has been widely analyzed, but after the issuance of the Letter of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Number 73 / KMA / HK.01 / IX / 2015, the concept of a single container still leaves big questions. One of the questions in the realm of criminal law is whether the letter of the Chief Justice that allows an advocate organization other than PERADI to propose an Advocate oath to the High Court can be categorized as an act against criminal law and can be held criminally responsible at the same time? This type of normative legal research uses a conceptual approach and a case approach, especially with regard to judicial reviews. The collection of legal materials is carried out by studying the literature on primary legal materials and secondary legal materials. The results of the study concluded that the issuance of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court No. 73/2015 which allowed advocacy organizations other than PERADI to propose an advocate's oath to the High Court could lead to acts against material criminal law. However, it is difficult to realize criminal liability for acts against criminal law due to the incomplete formulation, especially regarding the concept of contempt of court.\",\"PeriodicalId\":239318,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Jurnal Hukum Ius Quia Iustum\",\"volume\":\"151 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Jurnal Hukum Ius Quia Iustum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.20885/iustum.vol27.iss3.art2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jurnal Hukum Ius Quia Iustum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20885/iustum.vol27.iss3.art2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
关于单一辩护人论坛的讨论已经被广泛分析,但在最高法院首席法官的信第73 / KMA / HK.01 / IX / 2015号发出后,单一容器的概念仍然留下了很大的问题。刑法领域的一个问题是,首席大法官的信件允许PERADI以外的辩护组织向高等法院提出辩护誓言,这是否可以归类为违反刑法的行为,同时可以被追究刑事责任?这种类型的规范性法律研究使用概念方法和案例方法,特别是在司法审查方面。法律资料的收集是通过对一级法律资料和二级法律资料的文献研究来进行的。研究结果得出的结论是,最高法院首席大法官发布的第73/2015号命令允许PERADI以外的辩护组织向高等法院提出辩护誓言,这可能导致违反物质刑法的行为。然而,由于我国刑法对违反刑法行为的刑事责任制定不完善,特别是在藐视法庭罪的概念上,难以实现刑事责任。
Perspektif Hukum Pidana Dalam Polemik Pengajuan Sumpah Advokat: Telaah Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 35/PUU-XVII/2018 Atas Surat Ketua Mahkamah Agung RI Nomor 73/KMA/HK.01/IX/2015
The discussion regarding a single forum for advocates has been widely analyzed, but after the issuance of the Letter of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Number 73 / KMA / HK.01 / IX / 2015, the concept of a single container still leaves big questions. One of the questions in the realm of criminal law is whether the letter of the Chief Justice that allows an advocate organization other than PERADI to propose an Advocate oath to the High Court can be categorized as an act against criminal law and can be held criminally responsible at the same time? This type of normative legal research uses a conceptual approach and a case approach, especially with regard to judicial reviews. The collection of legal materials is carried out by studying the literature on primary legal materials and secondary legal materials. The results of the study concluded that the issuance of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court No. 73/2015 which allowed advocacy organizations other than PERADI to propose an advocate's oath to the High Court could lead to acts against material criminal law. However, it is difficult to realize criminal liability for acts against criminal law due to the incomplete formulation, especially regarding the concept of contempt of court.