Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2019 - 2024
0
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Jurnal Yuridis
Ansori, Lutfil
Unknown Affiliation
Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice

Published : 4 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 4 Documents
Search

 1 
TELAAH TERHADAP PRESIDENTIAL THRESHOLD DALAM PEMILU SERENTAK 2019 Ansori, Lutfil
Jurnal Yuridis Vol 4, No 1 (2017): Jurnal Yuridis
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Pembangunan Nasional "Veteran" Jakarta

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (322.698 KB) | DOI: 10.35586/.v4i1.124

Abstract

This paper aims to examine the presidential threshold in relation to the simultaneous general elections 2019. After the decision of the Constitutional Court Number 14/PUU-XI/ 2013 which mandates the general election simultaneously raises the pros and cons of setting the presidential threshold. In the constitutional perspective, using or not using the presidential threshold is not contrary to the constitution, because the presidential threshold is an open legal policy of the legislator. The legislators need to rethink the provisions of the presidential threshold especially in relation to the simultaneous elections, taking into account the advantages and disadvantages of applying or abolishing the presidential threshold, in order for the purpose of strengthening the presidential system to be achieved. The existence of simultaneous general elections has substantially eliminated the provisions of the presidential threshold, so the threshold requirement to nominate the President and Vice President becomes irrelevant. However, if the legislators demand presidential threshold, the middle path that can be selected is to apply the presidential threshold by using the legislative election 2014 with a record of institutionalizing the coalition.
PERTANGGUNGJAWABAN WAKIL PRESIDEN MENURUT SISTEM PEMERINTAHAN INDONESIA (STUDI PERTANGGUNGJAWABAN WAKIL PRESIDEN PASCA PERUBAHAN UUD 1945) Ansori, Lutfil
Jurnal Yuridis Vol 1, No 1 (2014): Jurnal Yuridis
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Pembangunan Nasional "Veteran" Jakarta

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (1171.39 KB) | DOI: 10.35586/.v1i1.139

Abstract

In the system of government of the Republic of Indonesia, the President holds the highest governmental authority in carrying out its obligations assisted by a Vice President. The 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, article 4 is said "In performing duties, the President is assisted by a Vice President". Constitutionally this article shows the position and duties of the Vice President as assistant to the President. Presenting the system of government by the constitution is intended to determine a position of the Vice President in related with the President in terms of responsibility. Based on normative juridical approach in this research, it is concluded that the presence of 1945 Constitution Amendment increasingly clarifies that the Vice President responsibility is to the President. It is based on the position of the Vice President interpretation in the Indonesian system that is not equal. This unequal position shows that the presidency as an organizer of the government administration is singular (single executive). However, to avoid the impression of the Vice President as a "spare tire", the Vice President should be given a clear constitutionally duties by delegating or sharing ofduties and not through delegating or sharing of the power
REFORMASI PENEGAKAN HUKUM PERSPEKTIF HUKUM PROGRESIF Ansori, Lutfil
Jurnal Yuridis Vol 4, No 2 (2017): Jurnal Yuridis
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Pembangunan Nasional "Veteran" Jakarta

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (443.149 KB) | DOI: 10.35586/.v4i2.244

Abstract

This articel aim for examine reformation and optimalisation of law enforcement at law enforcerment institution in terms of progresive law perspective. the law face in Indonesia today  is faced a complex problem on law enforcement process. Yet, Reformation on law enforcement is the answer to how the law in Indonesia is actuated within frame work of estabilishment an aspired state of law. Law enforcement reformation ideally must be done through legal system approach, that covered legal substance sub system, legal structure sub system, and legal culture subsystem.  in the context of  law enforcement institution reformation, institution reformation ideally based on three main orientation, which is democration principal, rule of law, and human rights. That institution reformation must be done with changing paradigm from the way of textual legal thinking to progresive legal thinking. It can be formed if reformation of law enforcement institution, consistent in bringing about changing cultural aspect that comes from changing structural aspect and instrumental aspect.
DISKRESI DAN PERTANGGUNGJAWABAN PEMERINTAH DALAM PENYELENGGARAAN PEMERINTAHAN Ansori, Lutfil
Jurnal Yuridis Vol 2, No 1 (2015): Jurnal Yuridis
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Pembangunan Nasional "Veteran" Jakarta

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (306.442 KB) | DOI: 10.35586/.v2i1.165

Abstract

This paper aims to determine the limits of the use of discretion in governance and its responsibility when there is a deviation of the law. As a welfare state, the principle of legality alone is not enough to be actively involved in serving the interests of the community. This discretion emerged as an alternative to fill the shortcomings and weaknesses in the application of the principle of legality (wetmatigheid van bestuur). The use of discretionary powers by government officials can only be done in certain cases where the legislation in force does not set or because the existing regulations governing something is not clear, and it is done in an emergency / urgent in the interest of public. Bounds in the use of discretion is the General Principles of Good Governance (AUPB). While responsibility for discretionary decisions is divided into two, (1) as the responsibilities of office and (2) as a personal responsibility. As the responsibilities of office, when acting for and on behalf of the office (ambtshalve) in which there is no matter of maladministration. As a personal responsibility, if the use ofthese powers are matters of maladministration.
Co-Authors