3 research outputs found
STUDI KRITIS PRAKTIK FAST-TRACK LEGISLATION DALAM PEMBENTUKAN UNDANG-UNDANG DI INDONESIA PERSPEKTIF SIYASAH TASYRI’ IYYAH
No full textLaws from mid-October 2019 to December 2020 have illustrated the disclosure
of legislation in Indonesia. The presence of several laws that were achieved through a
rapid, non-transparent, and non-participatory legislative process applies both in the
process of their formation to the substance of their regulation. At the same time, the
fast-track mechanism for legislation that is not available in Indonesia deserves great
attention in practice, which has taken the normal time in the formation of laws,
resulting in a series of problematic legislation products. This has spurred various
public questions on the fast-track law, which is referred to as a 'new phenomenon in
the legislative mechanism in Indonesia, so it is interesting to examine it more deeply.
Therefore, the formulation of the problem arises: the practical experience of fast-track
legislation in the formation of laws in Indonesia? implementation of fast-track
legislation in the power of legislation in Indonesia? fast track analysis of legislation in
the formation of laws in Indonesia from a siyasah tasyri'iyyah perspective?
This study uses a normative legal research method that examines library
materials based on secondary data sources with a legal approach (sculpture
approach), conceptual approach (conceptual approach), comparative approach
(comparative approach), and case approach (case approach) to gain an in-depth
understanding. and comprehensively on the problems of fast-track legislation in
Indonesia. All data obtained were then analyzed qualitatively. The analysis will include
and combine the concepts of legislation and siyasah tasyri'iyyah as a theoretical
footing in this research.
The results of the study based on the analysis concluded that the practice of
fast-track legislation has implications for the content of the birth of such a problematic
regulation. Fast track legislation is also incompatible to be applied over the legislative
power in Indonesia. More than that, the practice violates the principles of Islamic
tasyri 'in the perspective of siyasah tasyri'iyya
Relevansi Penerapan Asas Nebis In Idem dalam Penyelesaian Sengketa Proses Pemilihan Umum
No full textThe settlement of the general election process is carried out by several institutions, namely Bawaslu. Meanwhile, the appeal is the authority of the PTUN, because there is a requirement to have gone through the administrative process at Bawaslu. However, recently, the Constitutional Court in several of its decisions stated that it has the authority to examine the stages of the election. Based on the 1945 Constitution, the Constitutional Court is only given the authority to decide PHPU. For this reason, in this study there will be 2 problem formulations, namely how the separation of authority between Bawaslu and PTUN for disputes over the electoral process and the Constitutional Court for election results can guarantee the principle of justice? and how the application of the nebis in idem principle in resolving disputes over the electoral process in Bawaslu, PTUN and the Constitutional Court can increase efficiency and legal certainty? This research uses normative research methods with a statute approach, conceptual approach, and case approach. This research found that Bawaslu, PTUN and MK must have clear authority to handle election-related disputes. This is necessary to guarantee the principle of fairness and ensure that each institution only handles disputes in accordance with its jurisdiction in the legislation. In addition, it was found that the application of the nebis in idem principle in Bawaslu, PTUN and MK is very important to improve efficiency and legal certainty. This is so that there is no repetition of testing the same case with the same or even different decisions.
Implikasi Pengelolaan Kawasan Aglomerasi dalam Undang-Undang Daerah Khusus Jakarta terhadap Pelaksanaan Desentralisasi dan Otonomi Daerah
No full textFor more than two decades, the concept of agglomeration has been applied in DKI Jakarta, beginning with Law No. 34 of 1999 and continuing with Law No. 29 of 2007 as its legal foundation. With the government's execution of the plan to relocate the national capital from Jakarta to East Kalimantan, Law No. 2 of 2024 emerged as the legal policy framework for adjusting DKI Jakarta’s status. One of the key regulatory innovations introduced in this new law is the establishment of the Agglomeration Area Council, tasked with coordinating and evaluating spatial planning and development plans within the agglomeration area. While this structure presents positive potential for the governance of Jakarta and its surrounding regions, the agglomeration area arrangement under the new law signals a centralistic tendency—evident, for instance, in the President’s direct involvement in determining the membership of the Agglomeration Area Council. This may conflict with the principles of decentralized governance. This study employs normative legal research using a statutory approach to examine relevant legislation, particularly the provisions in the DKJ Law, and a conceptual approach to explain the general features of agglomeration areas. The findings indicate, first, that the agglomeration concept regulated by the DKJ Law is centralized, with the central government playing a dominant role, contrasting with agglomeration practices in other regions that are more decentralized. Second, the implications for the implementation of autonomy in DKJ are negative, as the central government's dominant role limits the flexibility of DKJ’s local government in decision-making and may lead to DKJ’s dominance over neighboring areas within the agglomeration zone. On the positive side, the surrounding regions benefit from the central government's support, indicating that the asymmetric design of DKJ governance also positively affects neighboring regions within the agglomeration area.
Abstrak:
Lebih dari dua dekade konsep aglomerasi diterapkan di DKI Jakarta, dimulai dengan UU No. 34 Tahun 1999 hingga UU No. 29 Tahun 2007 sebagai landasan yuridisnya. Seiring eksekusi rencana pemindahan Ibu Kota Negara oleh pemerintah dari Jakarta ke Kalimantan Timur, lahir UU No. 2 Tahun 2024 sebagai politik hukum penyesuaian status DKI Jakarta. Salah satu pembaharuan pengaturan konsep aglomerasi dalam UU terbaru ini adalah hadirnya Dewan Kawasan Aglomerasi yang akan melakukan koordinasi hingga evaluasi penataan ruang dan rencana pembangunan kawasan aglomerasi. Meski berpeluang positif bagi penataan Jakarta dan sekitarnya, struktur pengaturan kawasan aglomerasi DKJ memberikan sinyal sentralistis ditunjukkan salah satunya keterlibatan langsung Presiden dalam penentuan keanggotaan Dewan Kawasan Aglomerasi, hal mana dapat berbenturan dengan penyelenggaraan pemerintahan yang terdesentralisasi. Penelitian yang digunakan dalam tulisan ini adalah penelitian hukum normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan (statutory approach) untuk menelaah peraturan perundang-undangan terkait, khususnya ketentuan dalam UU DKJ dan pendekatan konseptual (conceptual approach) untuk menjelaskan fitur kawasan aglomerasi secara umum. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan pertama, konsep kawasan aglomerasi yang diatur UU DKJ bersifat terpusat/sentralistis dimana peran pemerintah pusat dominan dalam pengelolaannya, hal ini berbeda dengan praktik aglomerasi di beberapa daerah yang justru lebih terdesentralisasi. Kedua, implikasi terhadap pelaksanaan otonomi di DKJ bersifat negatif karena fleksibilitas pemerintah DKJ terbatas dalam pengambilan keputusan akibat peran pemerintah pusat yang besar serta kemungkinan dominasi DKJ terhadap daerah sekitar dalam cakupan kawasan aglomerasi. Efek positifnya adalah terbantunya daerah sekitar DKJ karena turut memperoleh sokongan dari pemerintah pusat sehingga tampak desain asimetrisme DKJ dirasakan pula oleh daerah sekitar dalam kawasa
