Mulia, Ifantry (2023) Tinjauan Yuridis Mahkamah Konstitusi Dalam Pengujian Peraturan Pemerintah Pengganti Undang-undang Terhadap Undang-undang Dasar 1945. Other thesis, Universitas Islam Riau.

Text 151010497.pdf - Submitted Version Restricted to Registered users only Download (1MB) | Request a copy

Abstract

The Constitutional Court has the authority to examine laws against the Constitution when it is connected with the issuance of Law Number 15 of 2019 concerning Amendments to Law Number 12 of 2011 concerning Formation of Legislation, especially in Article 7 paragraph (1) which states that hierarchically, laws and government regulations in lieu of laws are at the same level This research is to find out what is the basis of the Constitutional Court's authority in reviewing Government Regulations in Lieu of Law (Perpu) against the 1945 Constitution and what is the urgency of reviewing government regulations in lieu of laws against the 1945 Constitution The method used by the author in this study is the Normative legal research method, namely library legal research. While the nature of this research is descriptive, namely the author tries to provide a detailed description. Namely describing the problems found to be related to each other in a relevant and logical and juridical way to find out a clear and detailed picture of the basis of the Constitutional Court's authority and the urgency of reviewing a government regulation in lieu of a law against the 1945 Constitution. Then, the data is processed using qualitative analysis. The results of the study show that the basic authority of the Constitutional Court in deciding cases reviewing perpu against the 1945 Constitution is Decision Number 138/PUU-VII/2009, the a quo decision as jurisprudence is the authority of the Constitutional Court in examining perpu with the consideration that the legal norms contained in perpu have the same binding force. with the Law, then against the norms contained in the Perpu, the Constitutional Court can review whether it is materially contradictory to the 1945 Constitution. The urgency of the Constitutional Court's authority in examining Government Regulations in Lieu of Law against the 1945 Constitution can be carried out if the contents of the perpu are outside law materials, or clearly contrary to the Constitution, such as the dissolution of the DPR (Article 7C of the 1945 Constitution). The exceptions put forward are too general, what if the Perpu does not clearly conflict with the Constitution, but the substance of the Perpu falls within the constitutional realm, as in the case of the review of the KPK Perpu. Isn't the KPK an independent state institution, so if the President regulates it with a Perppu there can be interference which of course contradicts the nature of the presence of the KPK. So in the case of reviewing the Perpu related to the KPK, it is appropriate if the Constitutional Court is of the opinion that it has the authority to review the Perpu.

Actions (login required)

View Item