Detail Karya Ilmiah

  • PEGAWASAN TERHADAP HAKIM MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI MENURUT UNDANG-UNDANG DASAR 1945
    Penulis : FERDINAN TAMBUNAN
    Dosen Pembimbing I : ENCIK MUHAMMAD FAUZAN, SH.,LL.M
    Dosen Pembimbing II :R.WAHJOE POERNOMO, S.H., M.H
    Abstraksi

    Dalam Undang- undang Dasar 1945 (UUD 1945) sudah diatur tentang lembaga pengawas kehakiman yang tertulis pada pasal 24 B ayat 1 : ”Komisi Yudisial bersifat mandiri yang berwenang mengusulkan pengangkatan hakim agung dan mempunyai wewenang lain dalam rangka menjaga dan menegakkan kehormatan, keluhuran martabat, serta perilaku hakim” namun pada implementasinya hal ini tidak terlaksana, terlebih dengan keluarnya putusan Mahkah Konstitusi Nomor 005/PUU-IV/2006 tentang kewenagan Komisi Yudisial yang diajukan 31 Hakim Mahkamah Agung. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah yuridis normative. Adapun pendekatan masalah menggunakan statute approuach dan konseptual Undang-undang Dasar 1945 tidak memisahkan pengertian hakim berdasarkan ruang lingkup, maka semua hakim dalam ranah kekuasaan negara harus dimaksudkan sebagai hakim. Didalam pasal 42 Undang-undang Nomor 48 tahun 2009 tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman menyatakan bahwa: “Dalam rangka menjaga dan menegakkan kehormatan,keluhuran martabat, serta perilaku hakim, Komisi Yudisial dapat menganalisis putusan pengadilan yang telah memperoleh kekuatan hukum yang tetap sebagai dasar rekomendasi untuk melakukan mutasi hakim”. Pengawasan Hakim Mahkamah Konstitusi setelah adaya Putusan MK No 005/PUU-IV/2006 maka Komisi Yudisial tidak berhak lagi menggawasi Hakim Mahkamah Konstitusi

    Abstraction

    In the constitution of 1945 (UUD 1945) had been rearrange about institute of supervisor in judicial system that written on chapter 24 B verse 1: “judicial commission having character of independent that have power to suppose the appointment of prominent judge and having the other authority on frame keeping and to construct the respect, gloriousness, status and along with to the judge behavior ” even though for the implementation thing is not accomplished, especially after leave decision court justice constitution No 005/PUU-IV/2006 about the capability judicial commission that submitted on 31 high justice court. The research of methodology that used is judicial normative. As regard to an approach of the problem using tatute approach and the conceptual. The constitution of 1945 do not separated judge definition based on side all of judge on flatlands of the state authority have referred as a judge, in chapter 42 the constitution No 48 on 2009 about judge authority state that: On the side of keeping and to construct the respect, gloriousness, status and along with to the judge behavior, judicial commission can be analyzed court decision that have been receive the law authority as the based consist recommend to doing the judge mutation” judge control of constitution court after there are the decision MK No. 005/PUU-IV/2006 so judicial commission has no capability to manage of judge constitution court.

Detail Jurnal