CD Skripsi

Konstitusionalitas Pasal 12 Huruf G Dan Pasal 51 Ayat (1) Huruf G Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 2012 Dikaitkan Dengan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 4/Puu-Vii/2009, Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 79/Puu-X/2012, Dan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 42/Puu-Xiii/2015

---

According to Article 24C of the Constitution of 1945, especially the decision of the Court judgment in the judicial review of Law is final and binding. But how if the rule of law is also unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court decision revived in the laws changed but still set the same thing by the legislator as Article 12 letter g and Article 51 paragraph (1) letter g of Law Number 8 of 2012. Interestingly, when issuance Court decision number 42/PUU-XIII/2015 test article 7 letter g of Law Number 8 of 2015 which sounds identical to the norm of article unconstitutional it, and startling in the verdict of the Constitutional Court states grant the petition for partially unconstitutional conditional as the ruling of the Constitutional Court ruling Number 4/PUU-VII/2009. Then how about the norm clause that contained in Law Number 8 of 2012, is constitutional or unconstitutional, ever tested to the Court but the Court rejected it by its Decision Number 79/PUU-X/2012.
The purpose of this study was to determine the constitutionality of article 12 letter g and article 51 paragraph (1) letter g of Law Number 8 of 2012 and the legal implications after the Constitutional Court Decision Number 4/PUU-VII/2009, the Constitutional Court Decision Number 79/PUU-X/2012, and the Constitutional Court Decision Number 42/PUU-XIII/2015. This type of research used in this study is a normative legal research. In normative research, analytical methods adapted to the data categories and the desire of researchers. Analysis that is conducted qualitative analysis and it is the data analyzed by not using statistics or mathematics or the like, but simply descriptive outline of the data that has been obtained.
The results of this study is that Article 12 letter g and Article 51 paragraph (1) letter g of Law Number 8 of 2012 is unconstitutional and the legal implications after the Constitutional Court Decision Number 4/PUU-VII/2009, the Constitutional Court Decision Number 79/PUU-X/2012, and the Constitutional Court Decision Number 42/PUU-XIII/2015 is a legal ambiguity political rights of former prisoners, the loss of mutatis mutandis Constitutional Court ruling, does not contain provisions by ne bis in idem, and invalidates the erga omnes nature of the Constitutional Court. Supposedly Article 12 letter g and Article 51 paragraph (1) letter g that automatically declared invalid and for the former Act that the Parliament and the President, should be sincere to review all legislation along relating to the voting rights of former prisoners from adapted to the Constitutional Court's decision is final and have binding force, and the Court must remain consistent with previous decisions.
Keywords : Constitutional Court Decision - Constitutional Court - Judicial
Review

---

Ketersediaan

Informasi Detail

Judul Seri

-

No. Panggil

09 03. 116 (0017)

Penerbit

Pekanbaru : Universitas - Riau - Fakultas Hukum - Hukum Tata Negara., 2016

Deskripsi Fisik

xi, 112 hlm.: ill.; 29 cm

Bahasa

ISBN/ISSN

-

Klasifikasi

09 03. 116 (0017)

Tipe Isi

-

Tipe Media

-

Tipe Pembawa

-

Edisi

-

Subjek

HUKUM TATA NEGARA

Info Detail Spesifik

-

Pernyataan Tanggungjawab

DAUS

Versi lain/terkait

Lampiran Berkas

Komentar

---

Anda harus masuk sebelum memberikan komentar