서울대학교 중앙도서관
S-Space 소개
My S-Space
로그인이 필요합니다.
Login

S-Space

Publications

Detailed Information

Institutional Improvement of the Indonesian Constitutional Court : 인도네시아 헌법재판의 제도적 개선방안: 한국 및 독일과의 비교법적 고찰을 바탕으로
Based on Comparative Study with South Korea and Germany

DC Field Value Language
dc.contributor.advisorJong-Ik Chon-
dc.contributor.authorM. Lutfi Chakim-
dc.date.accessioned2020-05-07T04:17:02Z-
dc.date.available2020-05-07T04:17:02Z-
dc.date.issued2020-
dc.identifier.other000000160251-
dc.identifier.urihttp://dcollection.snu.ac.kr/common/orgView/000000160251ko_KR
dc.description학위논문(석사)--서울대학교 대학원 :법과대학 법학과,2020. 2. Jong-Ik Chon.-
dc.description.abstractThe idea of the Indonesian Constitutional Court establishment is intended to resolve cases that are related to the constitutional issues in Indonesia. Since its establishment on 13 August 2003, many landmark decisions have been issued, which shows that the Indonesian Constitutional Court has been playing an important role in securing constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and fundamental rights. Despite its achievements that have been made through its landmark decisions, however, the Indonesian constitutional adjudication system also has been raised public comments and criticisms, some problems can be found in the organizational structure, jurisdictional limit, procedural law issues, and controversy of decisions. The aim of this thesis is to give an overall picture of the Indonesian constitutional adjudication system, as well as evaluating its role and performance by finding the problems and challenges facing by the Court. The study is conducted through a theoretical inquiry and comparative study with constitutional courts in other countries, such as South Korea and Germany. Due to the protection of fundamental rights continues to pose challenges, it is therefore imperative that the Indonesian Constitutional Court must always improve its adjudication system. In deciding the case, the constitutional justices shall be independent and impartial to enforce law and justice. To give maximum protection of fundamental rights, the Constitutional Court jurisdictions should be improved by adopting constitutional complaint and concrete constitutional review. Lastly, to secure the effectiveness of the Constitutional Court decisions, a system should be built to assure the effectiveness and enforceability of the decisions, such as giving separation of legislative calendar for those statutory legislation based upon the Constitutional Court decision.-
dc.description.abstract인도네시아 헌법재판소는 인도네시아에서의 헌법적 쟁점에 관한 일정한 사건들을 해결하기 위하여 설립되었다. 2003년 8월 13일 설립 이래 많은 획기적인 결정들이 내려졌고, 인도네시아 헌법재판소는 민주적 기본질서와 법치주의, 그리고 기본권을 수호하는 데 중요한 역할을 수행하고 있다. 그러나 재판소의 획기적 결정들을 통한 성과들에도 불구하고 인도네시아의 헌법재판제도는 대중들의 지적과 비판 또한 불러일으켰고, 조직 체계와 재판권의 한계, 재판절차의 문제들, 그리고 결정들에 대한 논쟁에서 몇몇 문제들도 드러내었다. 이 논문은 인도네시아 헌법재판제도의 전반적인 모습을 그려봄과 동시에, 재판소가 직면한 문제들과 도전들을 살펴 봄으로써 그 역할과 성과를 평가하여 보려는 것이다. 연구는 이론적 고찰, 그리고 대한민국이나 독일과 같은 다른 나라의 헌법재판소들과의 비교 연구를 통하여 수행되었다. 기본권을 보호하는 과정에서 도전들에 직면할 것이기에 인도네시아 헌법재판소로서는 그 역할과 성과를 계속하여 향상시키는 것이 반드시 필요하다. 사건에 관해 결정을 내리는 과정에서 법을 집행하고 정의를 실현하기 위하여 헌법재판관들은 독립적이고 공정하여야 한다. 기본권을 최대한 보호하기 위하여 헌법소원과 구체적 규범통제 제도를 도입함으로써 헌법재판권한은 넓어져야 한다. 마지막으로, 재판소 결정들의 효력을 보장하기 위하여, 다른 국가기관들이 재판소 결정들을 존중하고 그에 따라야 하는 것과 별개로, 결정들의 효력과 집행을 확보하는 제도가 마련되어야 한다.-
dc.description.tableofcontentsTable of Contents
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. Study Background 1
1.2. Research Questions 4
1.3. Theoretical Framework 5
1.3.1. The Idea of the Constitutional Court Establishment 5
1.3.2. The Historical Development of the Indonesian Constitutional Court 7
1.4. Research Methodology 10
CHAPTER 2: THE ROLE OF CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION IN PROMOTING CONSTITUTIONALISM 11
2.1. Constitutional Adjudication and the Protection of Human Rights 12
2.1.1. Equality and Non-discrimination: Constitutional Safeguard and Adjudication 13
2.1.2. The Applicants Legal Standing Before the Constitutional Court: Reconciling Equality before the Law 16
2.2. Constitutional Adjudication and Democracy 18
2.2.1. Freedom of Expression, Democracy, and Constitutional Jurisprudence: Perspective from Indonesia and South Korea 18
2.2.1.1. Freedom of Expression in the Jurisprudence of the Indonesian Constitutional Court 20
2.2.1.2. Freedom of Expression in the Jurisprudence of the Korean Constitutional Court 27
2.2.2. The Role of Constitutional Court in Preventing Democratic Backsliding 32
2.3. Constitutional Adjudication for the Rule of Law 34
CHAPTER 3: THE INDONESIAN CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION SYSTEM: PROBLEMS AND CHALLENGES 36
3.1. Organizational Problems: Justices and Its Supporting Systems 36
3.1.1. Justices: Problems of Appointment and Term of Office 36
3.1.2. Judicial Corruption and the Weak Supervision of Justices 38
3.1.3. Dismissal of Constitutional Justices 39
3.1.4. Supporting System: Registrar and Researcher 40
3.2. Jurisdictional Limit: No Constitutional Complaint 45
3.2.1. Constitutional Review: No Concrete Review 45
3.2.2. Dispute amongst State Institutions 48
3.2.3. Elections Disputes 50
3.2.3.1. National Elections 51
3.2.3.2. Local Elections 53
3.2.4. Political Party Dissolution 55
3.2.5. Impeachment of the President 56
3.3. Procedural Law and Its Problems 57
3.3.1. Rules of Procedure before the Constitutional Court 60
3.3.2. No Time Limit for Some Jurisdictions 65
3.3.3. The Role of Attorney: Is it Mandatory 66
3.4. Decisions and Its Controversy 67
3.4.1. Decision Making and Types of Decision 68
3.4.2. Dissenting and Concurring: How Justices Express their Opinion 70
3.4.3. The Possibility of Inconsistency of Decision 72
3.4.4. The Weak Binding Force of Decision 72
3.4.5. Ultra Petita Decisions on Constitutional Review 74
3.4.6. Transforming from Negative to Positive Legislator 75
CHAPTER 4: THE KOREAN CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION SYSTEM 77
4.1. Organizational Structures 78
4.1.1. President, Justices, and Council of Justices 78
4.1.2. Selection, Qualifications, and Term of Justices 79
4.1.3. Supporting System: Research and Administrative Department 80
4.2. Jurisdictions of the Korean Constitutional Court 82
4.2.1. Constitutional Review 82
4.2.2. Constitutional Complaints 83
4.2.2.1. Complaint against Exercise of State Power 84
4.2.2.2. Complaint against Court's Denial of a Constitutional Review 85
4.2.3. Competence Dispute 86
4.2.4. Dissolution of Political Party 87
4.2.5. Impeachment 88
4.3. General Procedural Law and Decision 89
CHAPTER 5: THE GERMAN CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION SYSTEM 92
5.1. Organizational Structures: Justices and Rapporteur System 93
5.1.1. Justices and Two Senates 93
5.1.2. Selection, Qualifications, and Non-renewable Term of Justices 94
5.1.3. Rapporteur System of Justices 95
5.2. Jurisdictions, Procedures, and Decisions of the German Federal Constitutional Court 97
5.2.1. Constitutional Complaint 97
5.2.2. Judicial Review 101
5.2.2.1. Abstract Review 101
5.2.2.2. Concrete Review 103
5.2.3. Disputes between Constitutional Organs 105
5.2.4. Dissolution of Political Parties 107
5.2.5. Elections Disputes 110
5.2.6. Impeachment 112
5.2.6.1. Impeachment of Federal President 112
5.2.6.2. Impeachment of Judges 114
CHAPTER 6: IMPROVING THE INDONESIAN CONSTITUTIONAL COURT SYSTEM: A COMPARATIVE STUDY 117
6.1. Improving the Organization 117
6.1.1. Revising the Justice Appointment System and Term of Office 119
6.1.2. Strengthening Supervision of Justices: Does it Harm their Independence 123
6.1.3. Increasing the Supporting System of Justices 126
6.2. Improving the Jurisdictions: Better Protection of Fundamental Rights 129
6.2.1. Constitutional Review 130
6.2.1.1. Adopting Concrete Review 130
6.2.1.2. Integrating the Judicial Review System 133
6.2.2. Dispute of State Organs: Necessity to Expand the Object 135
6.2.3. Election Dispute: Strengthening the Constitutional Courts Jurisdiction in Deciding the Local Election Dispute 137
6.2.4. Dissolution of Political Party: Necessity to Expand the Applicant 140
6.2.5. Impeachment: Necessity to Expand the Object 141
6.2.6. Recommendation to Adopt Constitutional Complaint 144
6.2.6.1. Overview of Constitutional Complaint: The Korean and German Models 144
6.2.6.2. The Possible Way to Adopt Constitutional Complaint 147
6.2.6.3. Challenges in Adopting Constitutional Complaint 150
6.3. Improving the Rules of Procedure 150
6.3.1. Regulating Time Limit for Constitutional Review and Competence Disputes 151
6.3.2. Necessity to Regulate Expert Qualifications 151
6.3.3. Mandatory Statement of Government and Legislature in the Hearing 152
6.4. Enforcement of the Binding Decisions 153
6.4.1. Necessity to Expand the Provisional Decision 153
6.4.2. The Use of International Law in the Decision 154
6.4.3. The Constitutional Court's Relationship to the Government and the Parliament 157
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION 161
BIBLIOGRAPHY 164
ABSTRACT IN KOREAN 173
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Time Limit of Adjudication 65
Table 2 Case Statistic of the Indonesian Constitutional Court 2003-2018 69
Table 3 Comparison of Justices, Appointment Procedure, Term of Office, and Employees 118
Table 4 Comparison of Jurisdictions 129
Table 5 Comparison of Judicial Review Systems 131
Table 6 Comparison of Dispute between State Organs 136
Table 7 Comparison of Political Party Dissolution 141
Table 8 Comparison of Impeachment 142
Table 9 Comparison of Constitutional Complaint 146
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Organizational Structure of the Constitutional Court of Indonesia 41
Figure 2 Providing Substantial Support from the Center 44
Figure 3 Total Number of Constitutional Review Cases 2003-2018 47
Figure 4 Decision of Constitutional Review Cases 2003-2018 47
Figure 5 Total Number of Dispute between State Agencies Cases 2003-2018 49
Figure 6 Decision of Dispute between State Agencies Cases 2003-2018 49
Figure 7 Total Number of National Elections Cases 2004, 2009, and 2014 52
Figure 8 Decision of National Elections Cases 2004, 2009, and 2014 52
Figure 9 Total Number of Local Elections Cases 2008-2018 54
Figure 10 The Decision of Local election cases 2008-2018 54
Figure 11 Procedure from Application Submission to Decision 57
Figure 12 Total Number of Decision of the Indonesian Constitutional Court 2003-2018 70
Figure 13 Education Background of the Indonesian Constitutional Court Staff 128
Figure 14 Researcher of the Indonesian Constitutional Court 128
Figure 15 Hierarchy of the Indonesian Law and Regulation 134		-
dc.language.isoeng-
dc.publisher서울대학교 대학원-
dc.subject.ddc340-
dc.titleInstitutional Improvement of the Indonesian Constitutional Court-
dc.title.alternative인도네시아 헌법재판의 제도적 개선방안: 한국 및 독일과의 비교법적 고찰을 바탕으로-
dc.typeThesis-
dc.typeDissertation-
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor차킴 러트피-
dc.contributor.department법과대학 법학과-
dc.description.degreeMaster-
dc.date.awarded2020-02-
dc.title.subtitleBased on Comparative Study with South Korea and Germany-
dc.contributor.majorConstitutional Law-
dc.identifier.uciI804:11032-000000160251-
dc.identifier.holdings000000000042▲000000000044▲000000160251▲-
Appears in Collections:
Files in This Item:

Altmetrics

Item View & Download Count

Show Simple Item Record
Find it @ SNU

  • mendeley

Items in S-Space are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Share

qrcode
SNS Share