Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorGinting, Budiman
dc.contributor.advisorNasution, Faisal Akbar
dc.contributor.advisorAfnila
dc.contributor.authorBako, Fuji SM
dc.date.accessioned2024-09-17T15:54:52Z
dc.date.available2024-09-17T15:54:52Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositori.usu.ac.id/handle/123456789/97344
dc.description.abstractThis research is based on Article 24B paragraph (1) Indonesian Constitution 1945 which states: "The Judicial Commission is independent with the authority to propose the appointment of Supreme Court judges and has other powers in order to maintain and uphold the honor, nobility, dignity and behavior of judges". The constitutional mandate shows the authority of the Judicial Commission as an external control institution for judges to enforce the code of ethics in order to realize integrity of judges. This authority then resulted in a great debate in the Indonesian constitutional structure, especially in the two judicial institutions that became the object of controlling by the Judicial Commission, namely the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court. At least the Constitutional Court issued Constitutional Court Decision Number 005/PUU-IV/2006, which stipulated that Constitutional Judges were not part of the Judges who received controlling from the Judicial Commission, then further emphasized through Constitutional Court Decision Number 1-2/PUU-XI/2014 which further emphasized that the controlling carried out by the Judicial Commission against Constitutional Judges was unconstitutional and violated the principle of checks and balances system, which then resulted in a legal vacuum for external controlled of Constitutional Judges. The formulation of the problem in this study (1) How controlling between state institutions in order to create/uphold a check and balances system in the structure of state institutions in Indonesia?, (2) How is the controlling of Constitutional Judges by the Judicial Commission after the Constitutional Court Decision Number 1-2/PUU-XI/2014?, (3) How is the ideal controlling model for Constitutional Judges?. This research uses a normative juridical method with a conceptual approach and statue approach, this paper concludes that the controlling of constitutional judges by the Judicial Commission is appropriate because the 1945 Constitution explicitly provides the authority to supervise judges by the Judicial Commission, to maintain and uphold the honor, nobility, dignity and behavior of judges. Finally, this paper recommends the MPR to amend the 1945 Constitution specifically in the judicial power chapter by emphasizing the definition of judges who are the object of controlling by the Judicial Commission, as well as reorganizing the systematics of institutions related to judicial power by rearranging the order of the articles.en_US
dc.language.isoiden_US
dc.publisherUniversitas Sumatera Utaraen_US
dc.subjectControllingen_US
dc.subjectConstituion Judgesen_US
dc.subjectJudicial Comissionen_US
dc.subjectCheck and Balances Systemen_US
dc.subjectSDGsen_US
dc.titlePengawasan Hakim Konstitusi oleh Komisi Yudisial Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 1-2/PUU-XI/2014en_US
dc.title.alternativeSupervision of Constitutional Judges by The Judicial Commission After The Constitutional Court Decision Number 1-2/PUU-XI/2014en_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.identifier.nimNIM207005074
dc.identifier.nidnNIDN0011055902
dc.identifier.nidnNIDN0021095903
dc.identifier.nidnNIDN0030127501
dc.identifier.kodeprodiKODEPRODI74101#Ilmu Hukum
dc.description.pages154 Pagesen_US
dc.description.typeTesis Magisteren_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record