Assalamu'alaikum wr. wb.
Dear fellows,
As some of you know that me and a few of our friends from IP class are joining Forum Kajian dan Penulisan Hukum (FKPH) FH UII. Well, FKPH is holding an internal debate competition to select competitors to participate in debate competition that will be held in Unpad, Bandung.
At the second session, I was given a motion "Authority of constitutional complaint for Constitutional Court (MK)" and I was in the contra team. It is kind of a little bit hard for me because personally I am kind of fan to Mr. Mahfud MD, I support him to be the next Indonesian President also with Prabowo Subianto (I am seventeen now, I have election rights hehehe) and I am actually pro to MK.
Dear fellows,
As some of you know that me and a few of our friends from IP class are joining Forum Kajian dan Penulisan Hukum (FKPH) FH UII. Well, FKPH is holding an internal debate competition to select competitors to participate in debate competition that will be held in Unpad, Bandung.
At the second session, I was given a motion "Authority of constitutional complaint for Constitutional Court (MK)" and I was in the contra team. It is kind of a little bit hard for me because personally I am kind of fan to Mr. Mahfud MD, I support him to be the next Indonesian President also with Prabowo Subianto (I am seventeen now, I have election rights hehehe) and I am actually pro to MK.
Anyway, during the briefcase, I did find a few contra arguments of why MK should not be given this kind of authority.
One of them is "Ultra Petita".
Ultra Petita is decision made by judge more than what is actually demanded, it can also be said as decision towards a case that is not being sued.
Ultra Petita is forbidden because of these reasons:
1. The statute that is demanded to be tested is the "Heart" of the statute, so the whole sections in the statute cannot be implemented.
2. The practise of Ultra Petite done by MK is common in other countries.
3. The test towards the statute is erga omnes, different from private law.
4. The people's need of the existance of Ultra Petita is not absolute.
5. If the public necessity is wanting the judge not to be attached to the petitum, the petitum of justice is assumed to be proposed as well and disposing thing that is not demanded.
That is all I can share to you all for now, fellows. Anyway, wish me pass the FKPH selection ;)
One of them is "Ultra Petita".
Ultra Petita is decision made by judge more than what is actually demanded, it can also be said as decision towards a case that is not being sued.
Ultra Petita is forbidden because of these reasons:
1. The statute that is demanded to be tested is the "Heart" of the statute, so the whole sections in the statute cannot be implemented.
2. The practise of Ultra Petite done by MK is common in other countries.
3. The test towards the statute is erga omnes, different from private law.
4. The people's need of the existance of Ultra Petita is not absolute.
5. If the public necessity is wanting the judge not to be attached to the petitum, the petitum of justice is assumed to be proposed as well and disposing thing that is not demanded.
That is all I can share to you all for now, fellows. Anyway, wish me pass the FKPH selection ;)
Wholehearted love,
Gemi
Gemi
No comments:
Post a Comment