Studi Kasus Terhadap dikeluarkannya Peraturan Pemerintah Pengganti Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2013 Tentang Perubahan Kedua Atas Undang- Undang Nomor 24 Tahun 2003 Tentang Mahkamah Konstitusi

  • Arifuddin Arifuddin


According to Article 22 Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution stated that 'in
Happenings crunch that forced the President has the right set of government
regulations in lieu of law'. Therefore the president has the constitutional rights in
accordance with the legislation in force in the issuing of Government Regulation in
Lieu of Law (Perppu) Number 1 Year 2013 regarding the Second Amendment to
Law Number 24 Year 2003 regarding the Constitutional Court, however, in issued
a decree quo should qualify crunch forcing matters, and at least a race on expert
opinion that has been formulated as a picture crunch forcing matters, namely: the
state never considered previously and demanded an immediate action without
waiting for the consent of the advance; there is an urgent need for action or
reasonable necessity; limited time available (limited time) or there is a time
crunch; no other alternative is available or based on logical reasoning (beyond
reasonable doubt) Another alternative is not expected to be able to cope with the
situation, so that the regulation has the determination is the only way to remedy the
situation; can not be replaced by other measures; The measure is temporary; and
when action is taken, the parliament can not be real and earnest. So if it is
materially the president can not be issued a decree quo, because it is not in matters
of urgency into force as the force crunch criteria. Formulation matters of urgency
was an act of force to avoid the arbitrariness of the authorities and as a
consequence as a legal state.