Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2019 - 2024
0
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Pandecta Jurnal Konstitusi
Abdul Ghoffar, Abdul
Pusat Penelitian dan Pengkajian Makamah Konstitusi
Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Other

Published : 3 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 3 Documents
Search

 1 
Kejujuran dalam Bingkai Hak Memilih-Dipilih (Pelajaran dari Pemilukada Bengkulu Selatan) Ghoffar, Abdul
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol 8, No 1 (2011)
Publisher : Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (393.601 KB) | DOI: 10.31078/jk%x

Abstract

This article discusses two decision of the Constitutional Court. First, the Constitutional Court Decision No. 57/PHPU.D-VI/2008 on Election Dispute of Regional Head of South Bengkulu, which disqualify the candidate elected, Dirwan Mahmud, because it proved to be dishonest if he had been sentenced 7 years in prison, to the detriment of the rights of citizens to choose obtain correct information about the future leaders will be chosen. Second, the Constitutional Court Decision No. 4/PUU-VII/2009 about the review of Article 12 sub-article g and Article 50 paragraph (1) sub-article g election law, and Article 58 sub-article f Local Government Act, which gives the right choosen to convict (common criminal) after five years sentence expired with the condition that he honestly convey to the public if he is a former convict. This paper focuses on the importance of honesty   in the implementation of the right to vote and be elected citizens.
Problematika Presidential Threshold: Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi dan Pengalaman di Negara Lain Ghoffar, Abdul
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol 15, No 3 (2018)
Publisher : Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (392.32 KB) | DOI: 10.31078/jk1532

Abstract

Soal syarat minimal dukungan pencalonan presiden (presidential threshold) di Indonesia terus diperdebatkan, terutama soal konstitusionalitas dari persyaratan tersebut. Artikel ini bertujuan untuk mengkaji Putusan MK terkait persoalan presidential threshold sekaligus melihat apakah negara lain juga menerapkan sistem tersebut. Kajian dilakukan dengan menggunakan metode yuridis normatif. Kajian ini menyimpulkan sebagai berikut. Pertama, MK telah dua kali memutuskan konstitusionalitas ambang batas pencalonan presiden. Dalam putusan Nomor 51-52-59/PUU-VI/2008, MK menyatakan bahwa pengaturan ambang batas adalah open legal policy, yang kemudian dikuatkan kembali dalam Putusan Nomor 53/PUU-XV/2017. Kedua, di negara-negara yang menganut sistem presidensil, seperti Amerika, Brazil, Peru, Meksiko, Kolombia, dan Kyrgyzstan, ambang batas tidak dikenal. Mereka menerapkan sistem terbuka pencalonan tanpa dipersyaratkan dukungan. Meski demikian, sistem pemerintahan mereka juga tergolong stabil, seperti yang dicontohkan oleh Amerika Serikat.Dispute on presidential threshold required for the Presidential election in Indonesia remains intense, particularly in regard to the constitutionality of this requirement. This study examines decisions given by the Constitutional Court on the Presidential Threshold as well as analyses if other countries have applied a similar system. The method used in this study is juridical normative. It can be concluded that the Constitutional Court has made two decisions on the constitutionality of the Presidential Threshold. Stated on Decision Number 51-52-59/PUU-VI/2008, the Constitutional Court regarded the threshold requirement for the presidential election as an open legal policy, strengthened by Decision Number 53/PUU-XV/2017. Meanwhile, in other presidential countries such as United State of America (USA), Brazil, Peru, Mexico, Columbia, and Kyrgyzstan, there is no place for presidential threshold. They apply an open candidacy without setting any threshold of supports. Nevertheless, USA for example, has successfully demonstrated a stable form of the government under that system.
Mewujudkan Mahkamah Konstitusi Sebagai Peradilan yang Akuntabel dan Terpercaya Ghoffar, Abdul
Pandecta Research Law Journal Vol 13, No 2 (2018): December
Publisher : Universitas Negeri Semarang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.15294/pandecta.v13i2.16727

Abstract

Mahkamah Konstitusi terus berupaya menjadi sebuah peradilan yang akuntabel dan terpercaya. Namun dalam perjalanannya, terdapat hakim konstitusi yang terjerat korupsi. Riset ini bertujuan untuk melihat kewenangan yang dimiliki oleh MK, lalu dicarikan solusi untuk menjaga agar kedepannya lebih akuntabel dan terpercaya. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode yuridis normatif. Hasil penelitian menyimpulkan sebagai berikut. Pertama, MK memiliki kewenangan yang sangat besar, yang diantara kewenangan tersebut menjadikan lembaga ini sebagai pengawas lembaga legislatif, serta wasit bagi lembaga lain yang sedang bersengketa kewenangan. Kedua, MK harus menerapkan standar akuntabilitas yang tinggi untuk menghindari terjadinya korupsi, serta membangun sistem guna menjaga perilaku hakim, baik pada saat hakim sedang berada di lingkungan pengadilan, maupun di luar lingkungan pengadilan, guna meningkatkan kepercayaan masyarakat.The Constitutional Court continues to strive to be an accountable and trustworthy judiciary. However, on its way, there were constitutional justices who were caught in corruption. This research aims to examine the authority possessed by the Constitutional Court, so keys to the more accountable and trustworthy Constitutional Court in the future can be well identified. This study uses a normative juridical method. The results of the study are concluded as follows. First, the Constitutional Court has considerable authorities, which enable this institution to be a supervisor of the legislature and the referee for other institutions who are in dispute over authority. Second, a high standard of accountability must be applied to avoid corruption as well as a system to maintain the behaviors of judges should be established, either when judges are in the court or outside the court, in order to improve public trust.
Co-Authors