Search results

In 16 August 2019, the President of Republic of Indonesia gave speech on an idea of the translocation of the Indonesian capital city. The new capital city has also already decided by the President. The decision is made before the legal analysis including the legal basis of the decision to have new capital city. This paper will discuss the concept of the capital city from general- legal perspective to comparative perspective. This paper also discuss on how the concept of capital city is developed in Indonesia from the historical constitutional perspective. It will also analyze the presidential authority on the idea of proposing and deciding the translocation of the capital city. The argument in this paper is written as a legal argument by having perspective on the doctrinal-legal approach. It will use conceptual approach, legal and statutes approach and constitutional history approach. This paper ends up with the conclusion that the concept of the Indonesian capital city is different from the concept of the capital city in other countries, such as the Netherlands and Malaysia. In both countries, the concept of capital city is separated from the concept of government city, which is as the city center for governmental affairs. Besides, it is concluded that based on the Indonesian Constitution, the President of Republic of Indonesia has no absolute authority on the issue of translocation of the capital city. The President of Republic of Indonesia may have the power to propose the translocation of the capital city but there shall be further process of joint discussion and joint approval by the President and the DPR.

Judicial populism may occur when judicial branches are much more influenced by the interest of people majority. In this context, it is when justices deliver decisions according to what the people wanted and not what it has to be decided by laws. The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia (MKRI) has the pivotal role to protect the Constitution, democracy, and the rule of law principles by adhering judicial independence in the decision making process. This paper aims to briefly find out whether the MKRI decisions on the particular issue of economic and social rights show the tendency of judicial populism and defending judicial independence. A brief conclusion would be drawn from the analysis of the two MKRI's landmark decisions on the relevant issues of economic and social rights, in particular issues of Ulayat rights and educational rights (Case Number 35/PUU-X/2012 on the judicial review of Law No. 41 of 1999 on the Forest and Case Number No. 13/PUU-VII/2008 on the judicial review of Law No. 16 of 2008 on the Amendment of the Law No. 45/2007 on the State Budget). In a short analysis of both landmark decisions, the MKRI tends to defend its independence in delivering its decision. The Court also shows its consistency in protecting the Constitution by strictly upholding the constitutional values laid down in the Constitution and against the judicial populism. The Court in both decisions shows its constitutional commitment to preserving democratic values of minority-marginalized protection against the dominant-majoritarian interest. In the particular issue of education rights, the Court hinders the fulfilment of educational rights from the elite interest by preserving the constitutional purpose of making priority 20% for the education budget. In general, the MKRI has to guard preventing the Constitution and the rule of law principles, specifically on the issue of the protection of economic-social rights. It upholds judicial independence and put asides judicial populism.

The 2019 presidential and vice-presidential elections in Indonesia had complicated issues, including broken ballots, multiple voter lists, persons not registered as permanent voters, political money, transparency, administrative violations, electoral penalties and high white numbers. These problems indicate that the values of good governance have not been implemented in the election process. This paper uses the normative method to analyse the issues and laws, particularly when related to aspects of law enforcement and administrative law in good governance. This paper aims to formulate a method for implementing good governance in the election process. The results of the analysis show that electoral justice is very important in Indonesian presidential elections. However, the Indonesian presidential election system does not use good governance and does not support electoral justice. The results of previous elections in Indonesia showed that the values of good governance have not been well implemented in all stages of the election, especially regarding legal principles. This research proposes a good governance system to implement in the Indonesia presidential election process.

The rule of law sets as an important principle entrenched in the Constitution of Malaysia and Indonesia. This principle stand as a guardian against abuse of power by the government as nobody shall be above the law. This paper examines the practices of the executive power relating to decision-making policy, execution of power and enforcement activities in Malaysia and Indonesia. It also analyses how the executive branch perfoms the powers in accordance to the rule of law. It mainly focuses on the institutional framework of the head of the government and head of state. The analysis allows for identifications of issues and proposals on the enhancement of the executive branch in both countries that would increase the quality of state administration as well as promoting the rule of law. The study adopts a normative method where the fundamental discussions are based on normative approach with content analysis approach on the constitutional and legal provisions, legal cases, circular and directive. The data acquired through doctrinal study is supported by semi-structured interviews with respondents that have been selected through purposive approach. This article concludes that the executive branch plays important roles in promoting the rule of law in both countries. The Constitution, in this case, provides constitutional limitation for the institutional branch of the executive to perform its powers. In the age of rule of law, the executive powers has to be limited. There is no power without limits. The laws has to provide a clear legal direction and reliable mechanism of checks and balances to govern the exercise of the executive powers.