培奈普原理的一致性

Ikhsan Azhar
{"title":"培奈普原理的一致性","authors":"Ikhsan Azhar","doi":"10.25123/vej.3070","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The general public in 2017 hotly debated the implemented selection process of Judges. The focus is on the issue of government involvement in the selection process which potentially jeopardize the judiciary’s independence.  In discussing this particular issue, the author uses a juridical normative or dogmatic approach and other data is collected by the use of library research . In addition, the author also compares the existing policy and rules/regulation concerning judge selection from different government’ era (the Old & New Order). A number of conclusions can be drawn from this comparison, i.e. that during the Old dan New Order Government, the judiciary was never considered independent. The government on a regular basis intervene in the selection process, appointment and placement of judges and have a strong say in their professional carrer path.  In contrast, only after the fall of the New Order Government, did the Judiciary enjoy independence which is guaranteed by virtue of Law 35/1999 and the 1945 Constitution (amended version).  Unfortunately though the Supreme Court decide to bring back in the government in the selection process and in doing that jeopardize the judicary’s independence.","PeriodicalId":32446,"journal":{"name":"Veritas et Justitia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"INKONSISTENSI PENERAPAN PRINSIP INDEPENDENSI KEKUASAAN KEHAKIMAN DALAM PELAKSANAAN SELEKSI CALON HAKIM\",\"authors\":\"Ikhsan Azhar\",\"doi\":\"10.25123/vej.3070\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The general public in 2017 hotly debated the implemented selection process of Judges. The focus is on the issue of government involvement in the selection process which potentially jeopardize the judiciary’s independence.  In discussing this particular issue, the author uses a juridical normative or dogmatic approach and other data is collected by the use of library research . In addition, the author also compares the existing policy and rules/regulation concerning judge selection from different government’ era (the Old & New Order). A number of conclusions can be drawn from this comparison, i.e. that during the Old dan New Order Government, the judiciary was never considered independent. The government on a regular basis intervene in the selection process, appointment and placement of judges and have a strong say in their professional carrer path.  In contrast, only after the fall of the New Order Government, did the Judiciary enjoy independence which is guaranteed by virtue of Law 35/1999 and the 1945 Constitution (amended version).  Unfortunately though the Supreme Court decide to bring back in the government in the selection process and in doing that jeopardize the judicary’s independence.\",\"PeriodicalId\":32446,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Veritas et Justitia\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Veritas et Justitia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25123/vej.3070\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Veritas et Justitia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25123/vej.3070","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

2017年,公众对法官选拔程序的实施进行了激烈的辩论。重点是政府参与选拔过程的问题,这可能会危及司法机构的独立性。在讨论这一特定问题时,作者采用了法律规范或教条主义的方法,其他数据是通过图书馆研究收集的。此外,作者还比较了不同政府时代(新旧秩序)关于法官选拔的现行政策和规章制度。从这种比较中可以得出一些结论,即在新旧秩序政府时期,司法机构从未被认为是独立的。政府定期干预法官的选拔过程、任命和安置,并在法官的职业生涯中拥有强大的发言权。相比之下,只有在新秩序政府倒台后,司法机构才享有独立性,这是由第35/1999号法律和1945年《宪法》(修订版)保障的。不幸的是,尽管最高法院决定在选拔过程中让政府重新参与,但这样做会危及司法的独立性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
INKONSISTENSI PENERAPAN PRINSIP INDEPENDENSI KEKUASAAN KEHAKIMAN DALAM PELAKSANAAN SELEKSI CALON HAKIM
The general public in 2017 hotly debated the implemented selection process of Judges. The focus is on the issue of government involvement in the selection process which potentially jeopardize the judiciary’s independence.  In discussing this particular issue, the author uses a juridical normative or dogmatic approach and other data is collected by the use of library research . In addition, the author also compares the existing policy and rules/regulation concerning judge selection from different government’ era (the Old & New Order). A number of conclusions can be drawn from this comparison, i.e. that during the Old dan New Order Government, the judiciary was never considered independent. The government on a regular basis intervene in the selection process, appointment and placement of judges and have a strong say in their professional carrer path.  In contrast, only after the fall of the New Order Government, did the Judiciary enjoy independence which is guaranteed by virtue of Law 35/1999 and the 1945 Constitution (amended version).  Unfortunately though the Supreme Court decide to bring back in the government in the selection process and in doing that jeopardize the judicary’s independence.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
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