Abstract
This research come up from the premise that in the execution of their duties during this time, the Constitutional Court issued many decisions by some legal experts considered break the limits of his authority. One is on a judicial review which contains ultra petita decisions. Regarding to that condition, some parties considered that the Court has acted as an institution that is authoritarian and violated its authority, but on the other hand, the Court instead declared itself as the guardian of democracy and substantive justice. Author argued that, the prohibition to use a doctrine of ultra petita for judge was not generally applicable. Through normative approach and systematic interpretation said that on Law concerning to Constitutional Court (MK, Mahkamah Konstitusi) or other MK decisions did not give any possibilities for Judge to make an ultra petita decision.
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 callDisclaimer: 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.
