Suchergebnisse

In Article 1, Sub-Article 7, Act Number 6 2014 on Villages, it said that the Village Regulation is a regulation stipulated by the Urban Village Head after being discussed and agreed with the Village Consultative Body. The determination of the Village Regulation is an elaboration of the various authorities which are owned by the Village which refers to the provisions of the higher legislation. As a legal product, Village Regulation should not conflict with the higher regulations and should not harm the public interest, or the general interest as mentioned in Act Number 6 2014 on Villages which are: a. the disruption of communal harmony; b. the disruptionof access to public services; c. the disruption of public order and tranquillity; d. the disruption of economic activities to improve the welfare of village communities; and e. the discrimination against tribe, religion, belief, race, intergroup, and gender. Village Regulations govern the village authority based on the right of origin and village local-scale a thority. The implementation is supervised by the village communities and Village Consultative Body. It is intended to make the implementation of the Village Regulation always monitored continuously by local villagers because village regulations are set for the benefit of the village community as a whole. The provisions on the right of origin are explained as "the right of origin" which is a living legacy and the initiative of the village or the initiative of the village's society in accordance with the development of community life, including indigenous peoples' organisational systems, institutions, customary law, the ground of the village's treasury, and agreements in village life as well. The meaning of "village-scale local authority" is the authority to regulate and manage the interests of the village community that has is conducted by the village, is able and effective when conducted by the village or what has arisen because of the development of the village and the village community, such as boat moorin ...

AbstractThis paper will examine the restrictions imposed by the Indonesian government on religious activities carried out together in places of worship during the covid-19 pandemic. These restrictions in recent times have even reached the level of closing places of worship. This restriction was carried out by the government with the aim of preventing the spread of the corona virus. However, in practice, the level of citizen compliance with these restrictions is still relatively low. The question that then arises is whether restrictions on religious activities carried out together in places of worship during a pandemic (health emergency) can be justified juridically. Departing from this problem, this article will try to analyze whether or not restrictions on religious activities are correct from the point of view of human rights and Islam. The answer to this question shows that the limitation of religious activities carried out jointly in places of worship in a health emergency finds its justification both in the perspective of human rights and in the perspective of Islamic law.Keywords: Restrictions on Religious Freedom; Corona Virus; health emergency; Human rights; Islam.AbstrakPaper ini akan mengkaji pembatasan yang dilakukan pemerintah Indonesia terhadap kegiatan keagamaan yang dilaksanakan secara bersama-sama di tempat ibadah pada masa pandemi covid-19. Pembatasan tersebut dalam beberapa waktu terakhir bahkan sampai pada level penutupan tempat ibadah. Pembatasan tersebut dilakukan oleh Pemerintah dengan tujuan untuk mencegah semakin meluasnya penularan virus korona. Namun dalam prakteknya, tingkat kepatuhan warga terhadap pembatasan tersebut masih relatif rendah. Pertanyaan yang kemudian muncul adalah apakah pembatasan terhadap kegiatan kegamaan yang dilakukan secara bersama-sama di tempat ibadah pada masa pandemi (darurat kesehatan) dapat dibenarkan secara yuridis. Berangkat dari persoalan tersebut, artikel ini akan mencoba untuk menganalisis tentang benar tidaknya pembatasan terhadap kegiatan keagamaan ...

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.

Village regulations are shown as a basic device for the legitimacy of village government administrators in running the village government, in other words, village regulations are prepared as a reference in implementing government and development in the village. The purpose of this studywas to determine the legal status of village regulations in Indonesian legislation. In addition to knowing democratization in running village government. The research method used is a normative legal research method that examines laws and related literature. The results of the study indicate that that the legal status of village regulations in the statutory system is still recognized and the position of Village Regulations as a village legal product has a very strong juridical footing with the enactment of Law Number 6 of 2014 concerning Villages. Although Village Regulations no longer appear in the hierarchy of laws and regulations after the birth or enactment of Law Number 12 of 2011 concerning the Establishment of Legislations, their existence is strictly regulated and the position of Village Regulations is getting stronger because they have been used as a juridical basis for village regulations. With the issuance of Law Number 6 of 2014 concerning Villages.

The Constitutional Court of Republic of Indonesia is centralized judicial review institution which implements a posteriori and abstract control. Constitutional court decision often politically sensitive and involve important issues. On the one hand handing down strong decisions that uphold important constitutional principles can bring great benefits to citizens and can strengthen support for democracy but on the other hand, strong role of the court in judicial review tends to encroach increasingly on the territory of the law making institution. This article examines the decision of constitutional court in the framework of a tension between constitutionalism and democracy, especially from theoretical or conceptual approach. As result of examining its decisions, Indonesian Constitutional Court may reflect two characters; judicial activism as characterized by acting as law-maker and using policy in judicial decisions and/ or judicial self-restraint. Recent Indonesian experience shows that judicial review of legislation is not a simply of judicial control over law-making institution, as it brings tension in the context of power relations in the scheme of separation of power. Relationship between the court and legislature, in respective of judicial review, will culminate in the philosophy of the judiciary. However, as constitutionalism and democracy are virtue, decisions of the Constitutional Court in judicial review should create mode of self-limitation within the framework of the principle of separation of powers.

The Constitutional Court of Indonesia has held the followers of the indigenous religion (the Penghayat) can have their own religious identity on their identity card (ID) in 2016. The 1945 Constitution of Indonesia mentions a non-discriminatory principle which has been applied by the Constitutional Court to this case. However, the implementation of the Constitutional Court decision will face challenges and opportunities on the field. The author has used of both normative and empirical methodology by providing related legal information and the result of the interview with the local leader of the indigenous religion as sources of analysing the issues. As the result of the research shows the following challenges for the implementation of the Constitutional Court decision ; a. unification of the laws, b. lack of affirmative action for the followers of the indigenous religions, c. Lack of the updated and integrated administrative data base of the citizens with the Constitutional Court decision, d. religiously and ethnically based politics effecting the decision of public officials to accommodate public services for the followers of the indigenous religions while the following opportunities of the implementation of the Constitution Court decision are the constitutional recognition and protection of the indigenous community, the existence of the National Ombudsman Commission, the rule law principle in the 1945 Constitution, final and legally binding status of the Constitutional Court decision.