Suchergebnisse

Islam and democracy are two inseparable parts of social and political life in Indonesia. Textually, democracy itself does not exist in the Islamic Holy Qur'an or the Hadith (Prophet Muhammad's words and actions). However, implicitly and substantially, the basics of democracy are in the teachings of Islam, both in the Qur'an and the Hadith. The principles of Islamic teachings, such as equality, deliberation, cooperation (ta'awun), and good habits (taghyir), are compatible with democratic values. In addition, many idioms that form the basis of ethics and morals in society are generally derived from the experience of the Prophet Muhammad, correlating with the basic principles of modern democracy. In the context of Indonesia, it is undeniable that Islam has contributed to the climate of democratization. This further confirms that Islam is not against democracy. Both support each other.

When local election is stated as a part of the regime of general election law based on Article 236C of Law No. 12 Year 2008 on Local Government, the authority to settle the dispute on it was transferred from the Supreme Court to Constitutional Court. In the course of its development, the authority of the Court to decide local election dispute does not lie on textual interpretation only which merely rules on the dispute concerning the result of the election but also on the violations which happened during the election process. It is the constitutional obligation of the Court which basically has the purpose to ensure that fair and just election can be held. In practice, lots of problems arose in the organization of the election either concerning regulation, organization or law enforcement. From the Court side, lots of challenges and obstacles are also faced in settling election dispute. However, that situation does not deter the Court from making legal breakthrough to mend and improve local election system. The steps taken by the Constitutional Court precisely become inevitable and show to a greater extent its character as a court for constitutional matters with the authority to enforce law and justice as stipulated by the Constitution.

Indonesia sejak awal telah menegaskan dirinya sebagai sebuah negara hukum. Hal itu tampak pada adanya pengaturan yang jelas terkait kekuasaan dan fungsi masingmasing lembaga negara dalam bentuk sistem checks and balances antar cabang kekuasaan, jaminan perlindungan HAM yang cukup lengkap, kejelasan prinsip-prinsip mekanisme demokrasi, serta jaminan peradilan yang independen. Meskipun konstitusi telah mengatur sedemikian rupa, upaya mewujudkan negara hukum bukanlah hal yang mudah. Sekarang ini nampak perjalanan negara hukum Indonesia terasa masih tertatih-tatih. Berbagai persoalan hukum yang mengusik rasa keadilan terus muncul silih berganti. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa lebih dari dasawarsa terakhir, Indonesia telah banyak melakukan perubahan untuk mewujudkan cita negara hukum. Namun pada praktiknya, pembangunan hukum terasa masih tetap jauh dari harapan. Keberhasilan membangun negara hukum tidak dapat diukur dari kemampuan memproduksi legislasi dan menciptakan atau merevitalisasi institusi hukum. Lebih dari itu, keberhasilan bernegara hukum harus pula diukur dari implementasi dan penegakan hukum yang mampu menciptakan keadilan bagi seluruh rakyat. Oleh karena itu, fokus utama berbagai kajian hukum dan kebijakan hukum, harus diorientasikan pada institusi peradilan dan penegakkan hukum.

The 1945 Constitution gives limitative authority to the Constitutional Court only to review of laws against the constitution, adjudicate dispute over state institution whose authorities are mandate by constitution, adjudicate dispute on the result of general election, dissolution of political parties and obliged to decide upon DPR's opinion in the case of the impeachment of the President. In practice, many of the constitutional issues can not be resolved by the Constitutional Court because it explicitly doesn't include the authority of the Constitutional Court, for example, the adjudication of the constitutional complaint and the constitutional question. Both of these issues are not easily resolved by the Court outside of the Constitutional Court. The main issue to be analyzed in this paper is the possibility that the Constitutional Court may adjudicate constitutional complaint and constitutional question. By using the normative approach, comparative study of several other countries as well as theoretical studies on the functions of the Constitutional Court in constitutional democracies states, this paper analyzes the possibility of the Indonesian Constitutional Court may adjudicate constitutional complaint and the constitutional question.