SENGKETA KEWENANGAN PENGAWASAN ANTARA MAHKAMAH AGUNG DAN KOMISI YUDISIAL

FAHRUR RAZI, PRIM (2007) SENGKETA KEWENANGAN PENGAWASAN ANTARA MAHKAMAH AGUNG DAN KOMISI YUDISIAL. Masters thesis, program Pascasarjana Universitas Diponegoro.

[img]
Preview
PDF - Published Version
354Kb

Abstract

The amendment of 1945 Constitution has completed the renewal to entire constitutional system fundamentally including Judicature authority system. Throughout the third alteration of the 1945 Constitution, there were two new institutions within the Judicature authority in Indonesia ; they are Constitutional Court and Judicial Commission beside the Supreme Court and the justice institution under its authority. The presence of the Judicial Commission, with the main authority to complete recruitment of the candidate of the supreme judge and the other authority to prevent and establish the judge honor, honesty, nobility, and attitude (article 24 B 1945 Constitution), causes new obstacle that is the existence of conflict between the Supreme Court and Judicial Commission. The conflict between the Supreme Court and the Judicial Commission is derived from the application of the Judicial Review of the Regulation Number 22 Year 2004 Upon Judicial Commission to the Constitutional Court, acted upon 31 supreme judges. The problem existed of the application of Judicial Review mentioned shortly as : 1. Related to the judge meaning upon article 24 B section (1) 1945 Constitutional, according to the applicator the word “judge” does not cover Supreme Judge and Constitutional Court Judge, however it covers judges under supreme judge and the candidate judge of supreme judge. 2. Related to the problem of the surveillance function that is the authority of Judicial Commission as ruled in Article 13 letter b Regulation Number 22 Year 2004 upon Judicial Commission, the applicator stated that it is against the comprehension of Article 24 B act (1) 1945 Constitutional. Within the decision, the Constitutional Court mainly stated that the Constitutional Court judge is not included in the Judicial Commission surveillance object ; furthermore, all regulations related to the surveillance should have considered against the 1945 Constitution is not in detail to rule the surveillance, the surveying subject, the surveyed object, the used instruments and the executing surveillance process. Consequently, all regulations upon the surveillance become blur and create the law uncertainly within the enforcement. To response the Constitutional Court decision, there is the preparation of the Judicial Commission Regulation revision. Nevertheless, not only the revision upon Judicial Commission Regulation but also synchronization upon all the judge authority related regulation. It is hoped in the end, there would not by any other authority conflict among Judicative institution. Amandemen Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 telah melakukan pembaruan seluruh sistem ketatanegaraan secara mendasar termasuk sistem kekuasaan Kehakiman. Lewat perubahan ketiga Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 telah lahir dua lembaga negara baru dalam lingkungan kekuasaan Kehakiman di Indonesia, yaitu Mahkamah Konstitusi dan Komisi Yudisial disamping Mahkamah Agung beserta badan-badan peradilan dibawahnya. Kehadiran Komisi Yudisial dengan otoritas utamanya melakukan rekruitmen calon hakim agung dan otoritas lain dalam rangka menjaga dan menegakkan kehormatan, keluhuran, martabat, serta perilaku hakim (Pasal 24 B Undang-Undang Dasar 1945) ternyata menimbulkan masalah baru berupa ketegangan antara Mahkamah Agung dengan Komisi Yudisial. Ketegangan antara Mahkamah Agung dan Komisi Yudisial tersebut bermuara pada permohonan Yudicial Review Undang-Undang Nomor 22 Tahun 2004 tentang Komisi Yudisial ke Mahkamah Konstitusi yang diajukan oleh 31 hakim agung. Duduk perkara permohonan Judicial Review secara singkat adalah sebagai berikut : 1. Menyangkut pengertian hakim yang dimaksud dalam pasal 24 B ayat (1) Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 menurut pemohon kata “hakim” tidak meliputi Hakim Agung dan Hakim Mahkamah Konstitusi. Melainkan ditujukan kepada hakim dibawah hakim agung dan hakim yang akan menjadi hakim agung. 2. Menyangkut masalah fungsi pengawasan yang menjadi wewenang Komisi Yudisial sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 13 huruf b Undang-Undang Nomor 22 tahun 2004 tentang Komisi Yudisial, pemohon berpendapat hal tersebut bertentangan dengan pemahaman Pasal 24 B ayat (1) Undang-Undang Dasar 1945. Dalam putusannya Mahkamah Konstitusi pada intinya menyatakan bahwa hakim Mahkamah Konstitusi tidak termasuk dalam obyek pengawasan Komisi Yudisial selain itu segala ketentuan yang menyangkut pengawasan harus dinyatakan bertentangan dengan Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 sehingga tidak mempunyai kekuatan hukum mengikat sebab Undang-Undang Komisi Yudisial tersebut tidak rinci mengatur pengawasan, subyek yang mengawasi, obyek yang diawasi, instrumen yang digunakan, dan bagaimana proses pengawasan dilaksanakan. Akibatnya semua ketentuan tentang pengawasan menjadi kabur dan menimbulkan ketidakpasitan hukum dalam pelaksanaannya. Menyikapi putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi tersebut, tentu dipersiapan revisi Undang-Undang Komisi Yudisial. Namun demikian bukan hanya Undang-Undang Komisi Yudisial yang harus direvisi melainkan semua Undang-Undang yang terkait dengan masalah kekuasaan kehakiman harus di setarakan. Dan pada akhirnya diharapkan tidak ada lagi konflik kewenangan antara lembaga Yudikatif.

Item Type:Thesis (Masters)
Subjects:K Law > K Law (General)
Divisions:Postgraduate Program > Master Program in Law
ID Code:15789
Deposited By:Mr UPT Perpus 1
Deposited On:06 Jul 2010 12:56
Last Modified:06 Jul 2010 12:56

Repository Staff Only: item control page