Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 358 Download : 152

Main Article Content

Abstract

Indonesia is a democratic state based on the law (constitutional democratic state), with the understanding that the Constitution has a position as the supreme law because the whole administration of the state should be based on the Constitution. The Constitutional Court was present as the guardian of the constitution to the realization of the ideals of Indonesia as a democratic state based on law. The research entitled Rechtsvinding and Jurisprudence Used by the Constitutional Court examines the importance of rechtsvinding and the attachment of using jurisprudence in deciding cases according to the authority possessed by the Constitutional Court. This research uses the Socio-Legal method, which is a research method that examines a problem through normative analysis, then uses a non-legal science approach that develops in society. The results of the research that has been done are; 1 Rechtsvinding by the Constitutional Court interpreted as an effort to how the Constitutional Court interpreting the Constitution (1945), testing the laws against the 1945 Constitution, to decide the other cases the authority granted by the 1945 Constitution, 2) The Constitutional Court there is no obligation to be bound and is not there is a prohibition to use the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court.

Keywords

Rechtsvinding Jurisprudence Constitutional Court

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Sujono, I. (2022). URGENCY OF RECHTSVINDING AND JURISPRUDENCE IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT AUTHORITY: URGENSI PENEMUAN HUKUM DAN YURISPRUDENSI DALAM KEWENANGAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI. Constitutional Law Society, 1(2), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.36448/cls.v1i2.26
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Agustine, O. V. (2018). Keberlakuan Yurisprudensi pada Kewenangan Pengujian Undang-Undang dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Jurnal Konstitusi, 15(3). https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1539
  2. Askarial. (2018). Interpretasi Atau Penafsiran Sebagai Metode Penemuan Hukum. Menara Ilmu, 7(79).
  3. Atrey, S. (2021). Beyond discrimination: Mahlangu and the use of intersectionality as a general theory of constitutional interpretation. In International Journal of Discrimination and the Law (Vol. 21, Issue 2). https://doi.org/10.1177/13582291211015637
  4. Barnett, R. E., & Bernick, E. D. (2018). The letter and the spirit: A unified theory of originalism. In Georgetown Law Journal (Vol. 107, Issue 1, pp. 1–55). Georgetown Law Journal Association. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3049056
  5. Black’s Law Dictionary. (2019). Black’s Law Dictionary - Free Online Legal Dictionary. Black’s Law Disctionary.
  6. Bobić, A. (2017). Constitutional Pluralism Is Not Dead: An Analysis of Interactions Between Constitutional Courts of Member States and the European Court of Justice. German Law Journal, 18(6). https://doi.org/10.1017/s2071832200022380
  7. Brink, D. O. (2016). Originalism and Constructive Interpretation. In The Legacy of Ronald Dworkin. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190466411.003.0012
  8. Brouwer, R. (2020). On the meaning of “system” in the common and civil law traditions: Two approaches to legal unity. Utrecht Journal of International and European Law, 34(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/UJIEL.451
  9. Celis Vela, D. A. (2021). The specificity thesis of constitutional interpretation. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 19(4). https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moab104
  10. Colby, T. B. (2019). Originalism and structural argument. Northwestern University Law Review, 113(6). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3376150
  11. Fajarwati, M. (2016). Upaya Hukum Untuk Melindungi Hak Konstitusional Warga Negara Melalui Mahkamah Konstitusi. Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia, 13(03).
  12. Gordon-Reed, A. (2020). The Second Creation: Fixing the American Constitution in the Founding Era by Jonathan Gienapp. Journal of the Early Republic, 40(3). https://doi.org/10.1353/jer.2020.0075
  13. Hadjon, P. M., & Djatmiati, T. S. (2016). Argumen Hukum (7th ed.). Gadjah Mada University Press, Cetakan Ke.
  14. Hakim, M. H. (2017). PERGESERAN ORIENTASI PENELITIAN HUKUM: DARI DOKTRINAL KE SOSIO-LEGAL. Syariah Jurnal Hukum Dan Pemikiran, 16(2), 105. https://doi.org/10.18592/sy.v16i2.1031
  15. Harvelian, A., Safa’at, M. A., Widiarto, A. E., & Qurbani, I. D. (2020). CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION OF ORIGINAL INTENT ON FINDING THE MEANING OF SOCIAL JUSTICE IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW. Yustisia Jurnal Hukum, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.20961/yustisia.v9i3.42003
  16. Huang, Y. S., & Asghar, A. (2021). The political initiative of Taiwan’s education for sustainable development: Looking through the lens of Chinese legalism. Policy Futures in Education, 19(7). https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210321995650
  17. Introduction: Comparative Criminal Law. (2020). In The Handbook of Comparative Criminal Law. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780804777292-001
  18. Klink, B. (2020). Towards a Speculative Sociology of Law: Utopia as Method. Recht Der Werkelijkheid, 40(3). https://doi.org/10.5553/rdw/138064242019040003004
  19. Konyakhin, V. P., Batyutina, T. Y., Aslanyan, R. G., & Intykbaev, M. K. (2021). Acts of the Russian Federation Constitutional Court in the context of criminal law linkages. SHS Web of Conferences, 118. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202111803003
  20. Kuswanto, K. (2018). Consistency of the Presidential System in Indonesia. Sriwijaya Law Review, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.28946/slrev.vol2.iss2.67.pp170-182
  21. Lailam, T. (2016). Pro-Kontra Kewenangan Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam Menguji Undang-Undang yang Mengatur Eksistensinya. Jurnal Konstitusi, 12(4). https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1247
  22. Lule, A. (2021). DUALISME PENGUJIAN PERATURAN DAERAH: LEGITIMASI KONSTITUSIONAL DAN MENGAKHIRI AMBIVALENSI PENYELESAIAN HUKUM. CREPIDO, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.14710/crepido.3.2.110-119
  23. Molier, G., & Rijpkema, B. (2018). Germany’s New Militant Democracy Regime: National Democratic Party II and the German Federal Constitutional Court’s ‘Potentiality’Criterion for Party Bans: Bundesverfassungsgericht, Judgment of 17 January 2017, 2 BvB 1/13, National Democratic Party II. European Constitutional Law Review, 14(2), 394–409.
  24. Møller, J., & Skaaning, S. E. (2012). Systematizing thin and thick conceptions of the rule of law. Justice System Journal, 33(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2012.10768008
  25. Nelson, W. E. (2018). Marbury v. Madison: The Origins and Legacy of Judicial Review, Revised and Expanded. University Press of Kansas.
  26. Palguna, D. G. (2018). Mahkamah Konstitusi: dasar pemikiran, kewenangan, dan perbandingan dengan negara lain. Konstitusi Press (Konpress).
  27. Palguna, I. D. G. (2016). PENEMUAN HUKUM DAN PENGGUNAAN YURISPRUDENSI OLEH MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI.
  28. Purnamasari, G. C. (2017). Upaya Hukum Terhadap Pelanggaran Hak-Hak Konstitusional Warga Negara Melalui Pengaduan Konstitusional (Constitutional Complaint). Veritas et Justitia, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.25123/vej.2668
  29. Qerimi, Q. (2019). The contents and contours of contemporary cosmopolitan constitution-making: Immanuel Kant in the twenty-first century. In Global Constitutionalism (Vol. 8, Issue 2). https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045381719000078
  30. Rossum, R. A. (2016). Antonin scalia’s jurisprudence: Text and tradition. In Antonin Scalia’s Jurisprudence: Text and Tradition. University Press of Kansas. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.43-6846
  31. Ryan, J. E., & Ryant, J. E. (2011). LAYING CLAIM TO THE CONSTITUTION: THE PROMISE OF NEW TEXTUALISM. Virginia Law Review, 97(7).
  32. Saunders, B. B., & Kennedy, S. P. (2020). History and constitutional interpretation: Applying the “Cambridge school” approach to interpreting constitutions. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 40(3). https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqaa013
  33. Scott, I. K. (2021). Learning to “Think like a Lawyer”: Developing a Metacognitive Model for Legal Reasoning. College Teaching, 69(1), 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2020.1803190
  34. Simanjuntak, S., Alfaiz, R., & Ambarita, M. (2021). Urgensi Perluasan Kewenangan Mk Terhadap Constitutional Question Dan Constitutional Complaint Sebagai Wujud Perlindungan Hak Konstitutional Warga Negara. Legislatif: Lembaran Gagasan Mahasiswa Yang Solutif Dan Inovatif, 4(2).
  35. Singh, R. (2022). Epilogue: The Nature of the Judicial Process 100 Years on. In The Unity of Law. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781509949458.0030
  36. Solum, L. B. (2012). What is Originalism? The Evolution of Contemporary Originalist Theory. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1825543
  37. Subiyanto, A. E. (2015). Yurisprudensi dalam Putusan MK. Mahkamah Konstitusi Republlik Indonesia. https://www.mkri.id/index.php?page=web.Berita&id=10837
  38. Suryoutomo, M., & Febriharini, M. P. (2020). PENEMUAN HUKUM (RECHTSVINDING) HAKIM DALAM PERKARA PERDATA SEBAGAI ASPEK MENGISI KEKOSONGAN HUKUM. Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum Dan Dinamika Masyarakat, 18(1), 103–116.
  39. Tamrin, A. (2015). Perubahan Konstitusi dan Reformasi Ketatanegaraan Indonesiaa. JURNAL CITA HUKUM, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.15408/jch.v2i1.1843
  40. Ugland, E. (2020). Bork, Robert H. Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems, 47 Ind. L. J. 1 (1971). Communication Law and Policy, 25(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/10811680.2020.1766877
  41. Yunus, M., Astuti, I. F., Khairina, D. M., Freeman, & Teguh Martono, K. (2011). KEDUDUKAN YURISPRUDENSI PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI DALAM MEREKONSTRUKSI HUKUM ACARA. Jurnal Sistem Komputer, 10(2), 49–54.
  42. Zen Zanibar, Z. (2018). The Indonesian Constitutional System in the Post Amendement of the 1945 Constitution. Sriwijaya Law Review, 2(1), 45. https://doi.org/10.28946/slrev.vol2.iss1.109.pp45-55