Search

Most countries affected by the COVID-19 pandemic have proclaimed a state of emergency following their constitutional provisions. Consequently, in response to the outbreak, several countries resorted to utilising the authority vested in their respective governments by the Constitution or preexisting legislation about disasters. Indonesia subsequently responded to extensive criticism from domestic and international experts for its delay in formally declaring a nationwide state of emergency in response to the outbreak. In the initial year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the country experienced significant societal and economic consequences due to inadequate crisis governance. This article argues that the government's response to the COVID-19 outbreak was ineffective in preventing the Pandemic's rapid spread and its adverse impacts on society and the economy. This situation was due to perceived poor quality content and underlying principles of the country's legislation. Consequently, the insufficiency became apparent in the inconsistent strategies employed by both central and local governments in tackling the Pandemic, a need for more expertise among institutional personnel, inadequate allocation of resources for crisis management, limited collaboration among government agencies, and the vulnerability of law enforcement. This article proposes that Indonesia enhance its crisis management legislation to establish a comprehensive framework for the supervision and execution of various outbreak management strategies, including those associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The need for formal legal sources in constitutional activities in public life cannot be ascertained due to a country's dynamics and political conditions. It is still also related to the need for regulatory provisions that align with current conditions. Government Regulations in Lieu of Law (PERPPU) are issued by the President in response to compelling urgencies, leveraging his constitutional authority to enact such regulations. Since PERPPU is a subjective product of the President, as mandated by the 1945 Constitution, it must be immediately reviewed by The House of Representatives (DPR) for approval or revoked if rejected. With the issuance of the PERPPU, certain parties may undoubtedly feel constitutionally disadvantaged. In such cases, the way that can be taken is to conduct a judicial review of the Constitutional Court as has been established in legal precedent. This research includes legal research. It is called legal research because the object of research is related to law. The type of research used is normative juridical. The approaches used in this research are the statute, conceptual, and case approaches. The results showed that many cases of PERPPU reviewing at the Constitutional Court lost the object of reviewing because it was enacted into law by the DPR. The loss of reviewing object PERPPU reviewing at the Constitutional Court becomes a technical problem in PERPPU reviewing that must be anticipated in the procedure for reviewing at the Constitutional Court.

The Indonesian government issued Regulation in Lieu of Law (Perppu) Number 2 Year 2022 on Job Creation by amending several contents of the regulation. After the issuance of the regulation, attention has been focused on the regulation of the protection of women in law. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the effect of Government Regulation on Job Creation regarding the welfare of women workers in the review of contemporary Islamic law through siyāsah dusturiyāh. The analysis was conducted through library study, using data sources acquired from the literature pertaining to the Government Regulation in Lieu of Law on Job Creation. The results showed that in contemporary Islamic legal study, the concept of siyāsah dusturiyāh emphasized policy formation to achieve benefits measured through Maqasid Shari'ah. According to Perppu, every citizen was able to secure employment and receive fair as well as dignified compensation and treatment in labor relations, including the protection of women workers. However, several aspects did not work in accordance with the objectives and had a negative impact on women workers. These included the threat of low wages, the expansion of the outsourcing system, and the obligation of prolonged leave, which no longer persisted. In this context, Perpu was not consistent with the purpose of the benefit of women workers.

The aim of this research is to elucidate the interpretation of Article 22, paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, particularly focusing on the phrases "obtain approval from the House of Representatives" and "in the following trial." Employing a normative legal research approach, the study utilizes a statutory regulatory approach, a conceptual approach, and a case approach. The legal materials encompass both primary and secondary legal sources. The research findings delineate that the phrase "obtain approval from the People's Representative Council" in Article 22, paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia signifies: (i) the requirement for the President to submit the Perppu to the DPR for approval; and (ii) the discretion of the DPR to either approve or disapprove the Perppu. Meanwhile, the interpretation of the phrase "in the following trial" entails: (i) the period during which the Perppu is submitted to the DPR by the President; (ii) the initial session of the DPR following the submission of the Perppu; and (iii) the initial session period after the expiration of the maximum time limit for the President to submit the Perppu to the DPR.

Terbitnya Perppu CK memunculkan banyak pro-kontra dari berbagai kalangan tokoh. Penelitian ingin mengetahui seberapa besar pro-kontra yang terjadi atas diberlakukannya Perppu CK dan kesesuaian antara fenomena aktual dengan fenomena ideal. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif berdasarkan pendekatan perundang-undangan, kasus, dan konseptual. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan Perppu CK merupakan wujud produk gagal paham terhadap putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 91/PUU-XVIII/2020, sehingga legalitas dan eksistensinya menjadi problematika krusial. Hal ini juga dikaitkan dengan pertimbangan hukum 4 poin penting dalam penerbitan Perppu yang bertolak belakang antara fakta dan teori.

Copyright of Jurist-Diction is the property of Universitas Airlangga and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Jurist-Diction is the property of Universitas Airlangga and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The position of government regulation in lieu of law (Perppu) in the state administration system is regulated in Article 22 paragraph (1) of 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. In cases of compelling urgency, the President has the right to issue such regulation in lieu of law. This study uses normative legal research that analyses the provisions contained in the Indonesian Constitution, in which the President is constitutionally given the right to issue Government Regulations in Lieu of Laws in an emergency or critical conditions in order to resolve urgent issues quickly so as not to endanger the safety of the state. In order to comply with the principles of democracy, after the enactment of a Government Regulation in Lieu of Law within a period of one year, it must obtain the approval of the People’s Representative Council by making it a law; otherwise, the Perppu must be revoked.

Abstract After establishing a public health emergency with Presidential Decree No.11 of 2020, President Joko Widodo issued a Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 1 of 2020 (Perppu No.1 of 2020). Perppu No. 1 of 2020 was like becoming emergency legislation by suspending the right to examine government administration decisions. This article criticizes the arguments that place Perppu No. 1 of 2020 as emergency legislation which then allows the violation of the rule of law or suspends the rights of citizens. This article uses the comparative law method by examining the concept of fast-track legislation in the UK and Ecuador and comparing it to the concept of emergency legislation as a basis for criticism of the Perppu no. 1 of 2020. This criticism is carried out from the perspective of both emergency legislation and fast-track legislation. This article shows that the Perppu No. 1 of 2020 should be classified as limited as fast track legislation that cannot suspending citizens’ rights. Intisari Setelah menetapkan darurat kesehatan masyarakat dengan Keputusan Presiden Nomor 11 Tahun 2020, Presiden Joko Widodo menetapkan Peraturan Pemerintah Pengganti Undang-Undang No. 1 Tahun 2020 (Perppu No. 1 Tahun 2020). Perppu No. 1 Tahun 2020 seolah-olah menjadi legislasi darurat dengan menangguhkan hak untuk menguji keputusan administrasi pemerintahan. Artikel ini mengkritik argumen yang menempatkan Perppu No. 1 Tahun 2020 sebagai legislasi darurat yang kemudian memungkinkan penyimpangan aturan hukum atau menangguhkan hak warga negara. Artikel ini menggunakan metode perbandingan hukum dengan mengkaji konsep legislasi jalur cepat di Inggris dan Ekuador dan membandingkannya dengan konsep legislasi darurat sebagai dasar kritik bagi konsep Perppu No. 1 Tahun 2020. Artikel ini menunjukkan bahwa Perppu No. 1 Tahun 2020 seharusnya diklasifikasikan sebatas sebagai legislasi jalur cepat yang tidak dapat menangguhkan hak warga negara.

Government Regulation Regarding Act or abbreviated as Perppu is a Legislation stipulated by the President in the case of crucial urges. The substance of Government Regulation Regarding Act is the same as the substance of the Act. It is based on the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia Year 1945 Jo. Law No. 12 Year 2011 on the Establishment of Legislation. It studied in this paper that the position of regulation has in the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia Year 1945 after the amendment and regulation has in the perspective of the concept of legal state. In interpreting the term "happenings crunch that forced" in the issuance of regulation has, then it should act in more detail translate the will of Section 22A of the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia Year 1945. This research is descriptive and normative approach. The nature of "happenings crunch that forced" in the context of the state is only seen as an aspect of the prerogative of the President without judging cheks and balances system testing mechanism Perppu by Parliament.

Dua lembaga negara sama-sama berwenang menguji Peraturan Pemerintah Pengganti Undang-Undang (Perppu); Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat (DPR) “berwenang” berdasarkan Pasal 22 ayat (2) dan ayat (3) Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia 1945, sedangkan Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK) berdasarkan putusannya No. 138/PUU-VII/2009 menyatakan “berwenang pula.” Dengan adanya dua lembaga negara yang mempunyai kewenangan yang sama tersebut maka (dapat) terjadi fenomena. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum dengan menggunakan pendekatan normatif. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa ada tiga bentuk fenomena Two in One Pengujian Perppu yang (dapat) terjadi. Pertama, “judicial examination for constitutionality to Perppu pre-legislative review.” Kedua, “judicial examination for constitutionality to Perppu post-legislative review.” Ketiga, jika terjadi judicial review Perppu di MK baik dalam keadaan bentuk fenomena pertama atau fenomena kedua tetapi dalam waktu yang berlarut-larut DPR tidak memberikan keputusan tidak menyetujui atau menyetujui Perppu menjadi undang-undang. Prosedur hukum untuk bentuk fenomena kedua tidak jauh berbeda dengan prosedur hukum fenomena bentuk pertama; prosedur hukum serta yang dijadikan dasar pertimbangannya mempunyai kesamaan. Sedangkan prosedur hukum untuk bentuk fenomena ketiga perlu pula dikaji lebih lanjut secara mendalam untuk mencapai titik temu oleh dua pihak (DPR dan MK) yang berwenang menguji Perppu. Bentuk fenomena dan prosedur hukum pertama dan kedua bisa dikatakan sebagai jenis kewenangan yang bersifat pasif. Sedangkan bentuk fenomena dan prosedur hukum yang ketiga bisa dikatakan sebagai jenis kewenangan yang bersifat aktif. Two state institutions are equally authorized to test the Government Regulation in Lieu of Laws (Perppu); The House of Representatives (DPR) is “authorized” based on Article 22 paragraph (2) and paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, while the Constitutional Court (MK) based on its verdict No. 138/PUU-VII/2009 declared “authorized as well.” With the existence of two state institutions that have the same authority, then the phenomena (can) happen. This research is a legal research using normative approach. The results of the study showed that there are three forms of phenomena of Two in One Perppu review which (can) happened. First, “judicial examination for the constitutionality to Perppu pre-legislative review.” Second, “judicial examination for the constitutionality to Perppu post-legislative review.” Third, in the case of Perppu judicial review in the Constitutional Court, either in the form of the first phenomenon or the second phenomenon, yet in the long period the DPR does not give a decision whether to approve the Perppu or not into the law. The legal procedure for the form of the second phenomenon is not much different from the legal procedure of the first form phenomenon; legal procedures and the basis of their considerations are merely the same. While the legal procedure for the third form of the phenomenon should also be studied further in depth to reach the final point by two parties (DPR and MK) authorized to review the Perppu. The first and the second forms of the phenomena and legal procedures can be regarded as a kind of passive authority. While the third form of the phenomena and legal procedures can be regarded as a type of active authority.