Open Legal Policy Mk

The first time the Constitutional Court used the concept of open legal policy is in case No. 011/17/PUU-I/2003, the decision was triggered by Constitutional Court Judge Achmad Roestandi in his dissenting opinion, who stated that the authority to determine a ban on members of banned organizations from becoming members of representatives of the people is the authority alone, To form laws. Any state agency can issue a security and order assessment to set or lift restrictions, but constitutionally, legislators are the commissioners. The size or low percentage of the presidential candidacy threshold, which is an open policy, can actually be seen from previous decisions of the Constitutional Court, such as the decision of the Constitutional Court No. 14/PUU-XI/2013 of January 23, 2014 and the decision of the Court No. 14/PUU-XI/2013 of January 23, 2014 and the decision of the Court No. 14. 51-52-59 / PUU-VI / 2008 of 18 February 2009, in which it is expressly stated that the determination of the percentage for the presidential candidacy is an open legal policy or a delegation of an open authority, which is considered a legal policy by the legislative power. The recent decision of the Constitutional Court, number 22/PUU-XV/2017 concerning the age limit for marriage, has changed their perspective.

Although the decision of the Constitutional Court No. 30-74 / PUU / XII / 2014 states that Article 7 paragraph (1) of the Law on Marriage is an open legal policy regarding the determination of the age limit for marriage at the domestic level, the recent decision of the Constitutional Court considers that Article 7 paragraph (1) of the Law on Marriage can be reviewed or interfered with by the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court`s decision that the norms of the article under consideration constitute an open legal policy is not fully accepted by the constitutional judges as a whole. There are always judges who choose dissenting opinions, such as judgment No. 46/PUU-XIV/2016 in the context of the review of Article 284 of the Criminal Code, which rejects the extension of the meaning of adultery. Judgment 30-74/PUU-XII/2014 is a glimmer of hope regarding the issue of open legal policy, which is often cited as the reason why the Constitutional Court does not accede to the applicant`s request. The provisions of open legal policy can be reviewed by the Constitutional Court only if the product of legal policy clearly violates morality, reason and intolerable injustice, does not contradict political rights, popular sovereignty and rationality, and as long as the policy does not go beyond the power to make laws and does not constitute an abuse of power and does not manifestly violate the 1945 Constitution. Therefore, the Court`s decision on similar actions will always refer to earlier judgments. “The theory is that open legal policy is not the authority of the court. The court said that the presidential threshold is constitutional, the numbers are open and it is up to the authors of the law to decide,” he said at the opening session of the substantive test of Article 222 of Law No. 7 of 2017 on elections on Tuesday (26.7.2022). Illustration.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Arief Hidayat said the presidential threshold was an open legal policy. Over time, there have been many decisions indicating that the articles tested are an open legal policy, such as Decision No. 3/PUU-VII/2009, Decision No. 86/PUU-X/2012, Constitutional Court Decision No. 14/PUU-XI/2013 Material Review of Law No. 42 of 2008 on the Universal Election of President and Vice-President and Court Decision No. 51-52-59/PUU-VI/2008 regarding the requirements of threshold for the appointment of the Chair and Vice-Chair. Decision No. 30-74/PUU/XII/2014 In the context of the review of Article 7, paragraph 1, of the Law on Marriage, the minimum age limit for marriage is an open legal policy that can be amended at any time by the drafters of the law according to the requirements of existing development needs. It is the full authority of the authors of laws which, whatever their choice, are not prohibited and as long as they do not contradict the 1945 Constitution. In its judgment, the Constitutional Tribunal concluded that DPD RI`s application was inadmissible, which was linked to the Constitutional Court`s assessment that DPD RI was not legally entitled to request an examination on the merits under Article 222 of the Electoral Law. As far as the UN is concerned, the Constitutional Court considers that the UN has legal power, but the purpose of the request for a substantive test submitted by the UN is not justified under the law.

REPUBLIKA.CO.ID, JAKARTA — Constitutional Committee Chairman Arief Hidayat says the presidential threshold is an open legal policy. This means that the policy regarding the determination of the presidential threshold of 20% in Law No. 7 of 2017 on elections. This document will highlight the Constitutional Court`s assessment that the UN`s request for a material test is not justified by law. In its legal considerations, it notes that the threshold for presidential and vice-presidential appointments by political parties or a combination of political parties is constitutional, whereas in terms of the size or importance of the percentage of presidential appointment requirements (presidential candidacy threshold), it is an open legal policy that falls within the legislative formation. Arief Hidayat, Anwar Usman, Wahiduddin Adams and Aswanto stated in their arguments that if this continues or is decided as an open legal policy of the legislator, which depends entirely on the power and configuration of a dynamic policy, then the Constitutional Court actually offers an opportunity, or at least sincerely allows, the existence of a legal norm in the law and court decisions. which are unenlightened and even contradictory. with the religious values and divine rays and living rights of Indonesian society.

The thirty-one number of requests for material tests related to the threshold of presidential and vice-presidential appointment requirements should be used as reflection and open the eyes and heart of the Constitutional Court that the norms of Article 222 of the electoral law concerning the threshold of presidential and vice-presidential appointment requirements are really problematic. The provisions of Article 222 of the Electoral Law have effectively and potentially undermined the normative interpretation of Article 6A(2) of the 1945 Constitution, which simultaneously establishes two interests, namely the right to vote and the right to vote as constitutional rights of citizens.