Recently Published
Most Viewed
Pancasila sebagai Sumber Hukum dalam Sistem Hukum Nasional Image
Journal article

Pancasila sebagai Sumber Hukum dalam Sistem Hukum Nasional

Pancasila sebagai sumber segala sumber hukum sudah mendapatkan legitimasi secara yuridis melalui TAP MPR Nomor XX/MPRS/1966 tentang Memorandum DPR-GR Mengenai Sumber Tertib Hukum Republik Indonesia dan Tata Urutan Peraturan Perundang Republik Indonesia. Setelah reformasi, keberadaan Pancasila tersebut kembali dikukuhkan dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 10 Tahun 2004 yang kemudian diganti dengan Undang-Undang Nomor 12 Tahun 2011 tentang Peraturan Perundang-Undangan. Pancasila sebagai sumber segala sumber hukum memberi makna bahwa sistem hukum nasional wajib berlandaskan Pancasila. Akan tetapi, keberadaan Pancasila tersebut semakin tergerus dalam sistem hukum nasional. Hal demikian dilatarbelakangi oleh tiga alasan yaitu: pertama, adanya sikap resistensi terhadap Orde Baru yang memanfaatkan Pancasila demi kelanggengan kekuasaan yang bersifat otoriter. Kedua, menguatnya pluralisme hukum yang mengakibatkan terjadinya kontradiksi-kontradiksi atau disharmonisasi hukum. Ketiga, status Pancasila tersebut hanya dijadikan simbol dalam hukum. Untuk itu, perlu dilakukan upaya-upaya untuk menerapkan Pancasila sebagai sumber segala sumber hukum dalam sistem hukum nasional yaitu: pertama, menjadikan Pancasila sebagai suatu aliran hukum agar tidak terjadi lagi disharmonisasi hukum akibat diterapkannya pluralisme hukum. Kedua, mendudukkan Pancasila sebagai puncak peraturan Perundang-undangan agar Pancasila memiliki daya mengikat terhadap segala jenis peraturan Perundang-undangan sehingga tidak melanggar asas lex superiori derogat legi inferiori.Pancasila as the source of all sources of law has obtained legitimacy legally through the Decree of the People's Consultative Assembly Number XX / MPRS / 1966 on the Memorandum of the House of Representatives-Gotong Royong Regarding the Sources of Law and the Order of the Republic of Indonesia. After the reformation, the existence of Pancasila was re-confirmed in Law Number 10 Year 2004 which was subsequently replaced by Law Number 12 Year 2011 on Legislation Regulation. Pancasila as the source of all sources of law gives meaning that the national legal system must be based on Pancasila. However, now the existence of Pancasila is increasingly eroded in the national legal system. This is motivated by three reasons: first, the existence of resistance to the New Order that utilizes Pancasila for the sake of perpetuity of authoritarian power. Second, the strengthening of legal pluralism that resulted in legal contradictions or disharmony. Third, the status of Pancasila is only used as a symbol in law. Therefore, efforts should be made to implement Pancasila as the source of all sources of law in the national legal system: first, make Pancasila as a flow of law in order to avoid legal disharmonization due to the application of legal pluralism. Secondly, Pretend Pancasila as the top of legislation so that Pancasila have binding power against all kinds of laws and regulations so that it does not violate the principle of lex superiori derogat legi inferiori.
Pergeseran Delik Korupsi Dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 25/PUU\u002DXIV/2016 Image
Journal article

Pergeseran Delik Korupsi Dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 25/PUU-XIV/2016

Putusan MK Nomor 25/PUU-XIV/2016 mencabut frasa "dapat" dalam Pasal 2 ayat (1) dan Pasal 3 Undang-Undang Nomor 31 Tahun 1999 juncto Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2001 tentang Perubahan Undang-Undang Nomor 31 Tahun 1999 tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi (UU Tipikor). Putusan MK ini menafsirkan bahwa frasa "dapat merugikan keuangan negara atau perekonomian negara" dalam Pasal 2 ayat (1) dan Pasal 3 UU Tipikor harus dibuktikan dengan kerugian keuangan negara yang nyata (actual loss) bukan potensi atau perkiraan kerugian keuangan negara (potential loss). Dalam pertimbangannya, setidaknya terdapat empat tolok ukur yang menjadi ratio legis MK menggeser makna subtansi terhadap delik korupsi. Keempat tolok ukur tersebut adalah (1) nebis in idem dengan Putusan MK yang terdahulu yakni Putusan MK Nomor 003/PUU-IV/2006; (2) munculnya ketidakpastian hukum (legal uncertainty) dalam delik korupsi formiil sehingga diubah menjadi delik materiil; (3) relasi/harmonisasi antara frasa "dapat merugikan keuangan negara atau perekonomian negara" dalam pendekatan pidana pada UU Tipikor dengan pendekatan administratif pada Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2004 tentang Administrasi Pemerintahan (UU AP); dan (4) adanya dugaan kriminalisasi dari Aparatur Sipil Negara (ASN) dengan menggunakan frasa "dapat merugikan keuangan negara atau perekonomian negara" dalam UU Tipikor.Constitutional Court Decision No. 25/PUU-XIV/2016 revokes the phrase "may" in Article 2 paragraph (1) and Article 3 of Law No. 31 of 1999 in conjunction with Law No. 20 of 2001 on the amendment of Law No. 31 of 1999 on Eradication of Corruption (Corruption Act). Decision of this Court interpreted the phrase "may be detrimental to the state finance or economy of the state" in Article 2 (1) and Article 3 of Corruption Act must prove real state financial losses (actual loss) not a potential nor estimated financial losses of the state (potential losses). In the consideration of the judgment, at least, there are four benchmarks that become the ratio legis of the Court to shift the substance of the offense of corruption. The Four benchmarks are (1) nebis in idem with the previous Constitutional Court ruling that is Constitutional Court Decision Number 003/PUU-IV/2006; (2) the emergence of legal uncertainty in the formal corruption offense that it is converted into material offense; (3) the relationship/harmonisation between the phrases "may be detrimental to the state finance or economy of the state" in the criminal approach on Corruption Law with an administrative approach to Law No. 30 of 2004 on Governmental Administration (UU AP); and (4) alleged criminalization of State Civil Apparatus (ASN) by using the phrase "may be detrimental to the state finance or economy of the state" in the Anti-Corruption Act.
Suggested For You
Tindak Lanjut Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Yang Bersifat Konstitusional Bersyarat Serta Memuat Norma Baru Image
Journal article

Tindak Lanjut Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Yang Bersifat Konstitusional Bersyarat Serta Memuat Norma Baru

The research is concerning the implementation of verdict stating conditionally constitutional, conditionally unconstitutional and and the verdicts that contain new norm decided by Constitutional Court in the case of judicial review of laws againts the 1945 Constitutions of The Republic of Indonesia. This is a juridical-normative research using secondary data in the form of primary law materials, namely the court decisions which are issued throughout the year 2003 up to the year 2012 that have been collected in previous research. This research aims to know the choice of form of law taken by the addressee of the Constitutional Court verdict in following up the three variant of verdicts mentioned above. The research found that the choice of the form of law in implementing the three variants of Constitutional Court verdict is very diverse. Referring to the form and substance of the implementing rules and regulations of the three variants of verdict, there are still some incoherence with the Constitutional Court verdict which is characterized by the presence of rejudicial review of norms that had been interpreted by the court. To address this problem, the Constitutional Court must be provided with legal instruments, among other, judicial order that enable the Constitutional Court to order by force the addressee to implement the Constitutional Court verdict. In addition, in order that to ensure the harmonization of legislation either vertically or horizontally as a result of the Constitutional Court verdict, then it is worth putting into consideration to expand the authority of the Constitutional Court to review all rules and legislation.
Read more articles