Abstract
This study aimed to analyze the judges' considerations in the Constitutional Court Decision Number 16/PUU-XVI/2018 regarding the provisions of Article 245 paragraph (1) of Law Number 2 of 2018, and to analyze the legal consequences of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 16/PUU-XVI/2018 regarding written approval of the President in the examination of members of the House of Representatives suspected of committing a crime. This study used a normative juridical method with a statutory approach. The data sources (the primary and secondary legal materials) were analyzed descriptively qualitatively. The study results showed two judges' considerations regarding the provisions of Article 245 paragraph (1) of Law Number 2 of 2018. First, it was contrary to the principle of equality in law and government. Second, the assumption that the Honorary Court of the Council was an ethical institution with no direct relationship with the criminal justice system. The legal consequences of the Constitutional Court's Decision Number 16/PUU-XVI/2018 regarding the written approval of the President in the examination of members of the House of Representatives were causing legal uncertainty, legal injustice, and abuse of authority that could trigger a politics of retaliation.
Highlights
Abstract: this study aimed to analyze the judges’ considerations in the Constitutional Court Decision Number 16/PUU-XVI/2018 regarding the provisions of Article 245 paragraph (1) of Law Number 2 of 2018, and to analyze the legal consequences of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 16/PUU-XVI/2018 regarding written approval of the President in the examination of members of the House of Representatives suspected of committing a crime
The assumption that the Honorary Court of the Council was an ethical institution with no direct relationship with the criminal justice system
The legal consequences of the Constitutional Court’s Decision Number 16/PUU-XVI/2018 regarding the written approval of the President in the examination of members of the House of Representatives were causing legal uncertainty, legal injustice, and abuse of authority that could trigger a politics of retaliation
Summary
Abstrak: kajian ini bertujuan menganalisis pertimbangan hakim dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 16/PUUXVI/2018 terkait ketentuan Pasal 245 ayat (1) Undang-Undang Nomor 2 Tahun 2018, serta menganalisis akibat hukum Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 16/PUU-XVI/2018 terkait persetujuan tertulis Presiden dalam pemeriksaan anggota Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat yang diduga melakukan tindak pidana. Ketentuan Pasal 245 ayat (1) UU Nomor 2 Tahun 2018 secara tidak langsung menjelaskan bahwa pemаnggilаn dаn permintааn keterаngаn dalam proses penyidikаn pada oknum anggota DPR yang melakukan tindak pidana harus dengan persetujuan tertulis dari Presiden. Kajian ini membahas persoalan mengenai (1) pertimbangan hakim dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 16/PUU-XVI/2018 terkait ketentuan Pasal 245 ayat (1) UndangUndang Nomor 2 Tahun 2018, dan (2) akibat hukum Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 16/PUU-XVI/2018 terkait persetujuan tertulis Presiden dalam pemeriksaan anggota Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat yang diduga melakukan tindak pidana.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Pancasila dan Kewarganegaraan
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
