Implementasi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 92/PUU-X/2012 Terkait Kewenangan Dewan Perwakilan Daerah dalam Pembentukan UndangUndang

Abstract

Why Constitutional Court verdict Number. 92/PUU-X/2012 attractive to serve as an object of research? The main reason is, there is a problem that is visible on the implementation of the Decision. The problem shown in fact that can be observed after the verdict was pronounced in the plenary session of the Constitutional Court. Up to almost 1 (one) year later, since pronounced in the plenary session, the Constitutional Court also considered yet implemented. This research seeks to express the fact that covers the implementation of Constitutional Court Decision No. 92/PUU-X/2012. Therefore, although more as a normative-doctrinal research and/or prescriptive with the focus of study that leads to the question of “how it should act”, this research is very likely propose another style that touches the issue of “what happened” and “why it happened”. The purpose of the implementation of this study was to determine and explain about the implementation of the Constitutional Court Number 92/PUU-X/2012, including to identify and explain the obstacles and difficulties in the implementation of the Constitutional Court Decision No. 92/PUU-X/2012, and find out and explain the legal politics legislation following the Ruling of the Constitutional Court Number 92/PUU-X/2012. In this theoretical framework introduced some basic concepts that are key aspects to strengthen the argument in this study. In this regard, this study uses a few basic concepts, namely: (1) the law not only as a rule (rule) but also behavior (behavior), (2) awareness and compliance with the law; (3) The strength of binding court decisions, and (4) Due to legal and implementation models court decision.

Constitutionality of Indigenous Law Communities in the Perspective of Sociological Jurisprudence Theory

“…The decision of the Constitutional Court is final, but factually it shows that the final decision of the Constitutional Court is often not responded positively by other state institutions (not realized yet) (Handayani et al, 2019). Borrowing Hamilto's opinion (Laksono et al, 2016), The judiciary is a branch of power that is (functionally) the weakest and most vulnerable, even to be able to execute a decision, the judiciary must be supported and assisted by other branches of power, namely: executive and legislative powers, because the executive has a tool in the form of a sword (weapon), while the legislature determines the budgeting/state finances. This is on the contrary, with the judicial branch only authorized at the level of deciding cases.…”

“…This is on the contrary, with the judicial branch only authorized at the level of deciding cases. So that the decision of the Constitutional Court is not of an implementation character (Laksono et al, 2016).…”