PENGATURAN HAKIM MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI DARI UNSUR MAHKAMAH AGUNG (Studi Undang-Undang Nomor 7 Tahun 2020)

Muhammad Raihan Majid, NIM.: 21103040006 (2026) PENGATURAN HAKIM MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI DARI UNSUR MAHKAMAH AGUNG (Studi Undang-Undang Nomor 7 Tahun 2020). Skripsi thesis, UIN SUNAN KALIJAGA YOGYAKARTA.

	Text (PENGATURAN HAKIM MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI DARI UNSUR MAHKAMAH AGUNG (Studi Undang-Undang Nomor 7 Tahun 2020)) 21103040006_BAB-I_IV-atau-V_DAFTAR-PUSTAKA.pdf - Published Version Download (3MB)
	Text (PENGATURAN HAKIM MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI DARI UNSUR MAHKAMAH AGUNG (Studi Undang-Undang Nomor 7 Tahun 2020)) 21103040006_BAB-II_sampai_SEBELUM-BAB-TERAKHIR.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (3MB) | Request a copy

Abstract

The controversy surrounding the regulation on the appointment of Constitutional Court justices originating from the Supreme Court, as stipulated in Article 15 paragraph (2) letter h of Law Number 7 of 2020 concerning the Third Amendment to the Constitutional Court Law, in fact still raises questions. The regulation of the a quo article in the Third Amendment to the Constitutional Court Law is alleged to contradict the mandate of the 1945 Constitution. At the same time, the implications of the a quo article affect the authority among the proposing institutions as well as the sustainability of every citizen’s constitutional right to have the opportunity to become a candidate for Constitutional Court justice from the Supreme Court environment.

This study employs a descriptive library research method using a normative juridical approach. The analysis is conducted through statute and conceptual approaches, with data collected from relevant legal literature and examined using qualitative analysis.

The results of this study lead to two simple conclusions. First, Article 15 paragraph (2) letter h of the third revision of the Constitutional Court Law (UUMK), viewed from the perspective of the Stufenbau Theory as the basis for analyzing the a quo article, indicates that the normative regulation of Article 15 paragraph (2) letter h of the third revision of the UUMK is contrary to the spirit of the 1945 Constitution. Second, based on the principle of equality before the law, this has implications for and impacts the unequal treatment among institutions proposing Constitutional Court judges. This also affects the sustainability of the constitutional rights of citizens, other than Supreme Court justices and high court judges, to have equal opportunities under the law and government to become candidates for Constitutional Court judges from the Supreme Court element.

Share this knowledge with your friends :

Actions (login required)

View Item