Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2019 - 2024
0.444
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Jurnal Konstitusi Constitutional Review Jurnal Konstitusi Indonesia Law Review (ILREV)
M. Lutfi Chakim, M. Lutfi
Komisi Yudisial Republik Indonesia Jl. Kramat Raya No. 57, Jakarta Pusat
Humanities Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences Other

Published : 5 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 5 Documents
Search

 1 
Desain Institusional Dewan Kehormatan Penyelenggara Pemilu (DKPP) Sebagai Peradilan Etik Chakim, M. Lutfi
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol 11, No 2 (2014)
Publisher : Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (214.099 KB) | DOI: 10.31078/jk%x

Abstract

Ethics basically teach and emphasize to every individual including the organizer of election to take a stand and ensure that any action taken always relying on moral values. Ethics is an important element that must be adhered to every organizer of election, because it is one of the fundamental aspects for realizing democratic elections. Therefore, to enforce the Code of Ethic organizer of election, then formed Honorary Board of Organizer of Elections (DKPP) which aims to maintain independence, integrity and credibility of the Election Commission (KPU) and the Election Supervisory Body (Bawaslu) that is certainly going well and  correctly. DKPP is an institution designed as a court of ethics, applying an open model and applying all the principles as in a court. So, for the organizer of election found to have violated the Code of Ethics, DKPP can provide sanctions in accordance with  the level of the offense, that consists of a written reprimand, dismissal meantime, and permanent dismissal. Moreover DKPP decision is final and binding.
Mewujudkan Keadilan Melalui Upaya Hukum Peninjauan Kembali pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Chakim, M. Lutfi
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol 12, No 2 (2015)
Publisher : Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (438.908 KB) | DOI: 10.31078/jk1227

Abstract

The reconsideration is an extraordinary legal remedy to the decision of Court that have legally binding (inkracht van gewisjde). The Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 34/PUU-XI/2013 stated that extraordinary legal remedy aims to obtain justice and truth material, so the provisions of Article 268 paragraph (3) Criminal Procedure Code states that, “request reconsideration of a decision can only be done once only” contrary to the 1945 Constitution and does not have binding force. The decision of Constitutional Court raises the pros and cons, on one side there are statements that reconsideration more than once is an effort to protect the rights of the public in obtaining justice, but on the other side there are statements that reconsideration is more than once is a violation of the principle of legal certainty. After analyzing the decision of the Constitutional Court No. 34/PUU-XI/2013  it could be concluded that, first, the reconsideration is more than once in accordance with the public interest to obtain justice in law enforcement, because in obtaining justice and truth material can not be limited by time. Second, the decision of the Constitutional Court are final and binding, despite raises the pros and cons, then all are required to implement the decision of the Constitutional Court. Therefore, the Supreme Court is expected to soon complete the Regulation of the Supreme Court about filing reconsideration in criminal cases by adjusting the decision of the Constitutional Court.
A Comparative Perspective on Constitutional Complaint: Discussing Models, Procedures, and Decisions Chakim, M. Lutfi
Constitutional Review Vol 5, No 1 (2019)
Publisher : The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (355.554 KB) | DOI: 10.31078/consrev514

Abstract

The constitutional complaint is one of the important constitutional court jurisdictions that can be described as a complaint or lawsuit filed by any person who deems his or her rights has been violating by act or omission of public authority. Currently, the constitutional court in many countries have adopted a constitutional complaint system in a variety of models. However, the first application of the constitutional complaint jurisdiction came from Europe. In Austria, the constitutional complaint is allowed against the administrative actions but not against the court decisions. While Germany and Spain have a similar model that is a complaint against an act of the public authority including court decisions. In Asia, it is imperative that the court in Asia actively participate in the Association of Asian Constitutional Courts and Equivalent Institutions (AACC). The AACC members have adopted a system of constitutional adjudication in a variety of models, and when it comes to jurisdictions, out of sixteen AACC members, there are four countries (Azerbaijan, South Korea, Thailand, and Turkey) have the constitutional complaint in their jurisdictions. In Azerbaijan, constitutional complaint is comparatively broad. Azerbaijan?s Constitutional Court can handle constitutional complaint against the normative legal act of the legislative and executive, an act of a municipality and the decisions of courts. In contrast, even though constitutional complaint in South Korea and Thailand can be against the exercise and non-exercise of state power, constitutional complaint cannot be filed against court decisions. In Turkey, the constitutional complaint mechanism is coupled with the regional system of human rights protection. The Turkish Constitutional Court handles complaints from individuals concerning violations of human rights and freedoms falling under the joint protection of the Turkish Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This paper argues that constitutional complaint represents the main part of the constitutional court, and through a comparative perspective among three countries in Europe and four AACC members are expected to provide lessons for the other AACC members that do not have a constitutional complaint mechanism, such as Indonesia.
Mewujudkan Keadilan Melalui Upaya Hukum Peninjauan Kembali pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Chakim, M. Lutfi
Jurnal Konstitusi Vol 12, No 2 (2015)
Publisher : Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (438.908 KB) | DOI: 10.31078/jk1227

Abstract

The reconsideration is an extraordinary legal remedy to the decision of Court that have legally binding (inkracht van gewisjde). The Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 34/PUU-XI/2013 stated that extraordinary legal remedy aims to obtain justice and truth material, so the provisions of Article 268 paragraph (3) Criminal Procedure Code states that, “request reconsideration of a decision can only be done once only” contrary to the 1945 Constitution and does not have binding force. The decision of Constitutional Court raises the pros and cons, on one side there are statements that reconsideration more than once is an effort to protect the rights of the public in obtaining justice, but on the other side there are statements that reconsideration is more than once is a violation of the principle of legal certainty. After analyzing the decision of the Constitutional Court No. 34/PUU-XI/2013  it could be concluded that, first, the reconsideration is more than once in accordance with the public interest to obtain justice in law enforcement, because in obtaining justice and truth material can not be limited by time. Second, the decision of the Constitutional Court are final and binding, despite raises the pros and cons, then all are required to implement the decision of the Constitutional Court. Therefore, the Supreme Court is expected to soon complete the Regulation of the Supreme Court about filing reconsideration in criminal cases by adjusting the decision of the Constitutional Court.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND THE ROLE OF CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS: THE CASES OF INDONESIA AND SOUTH KOREA Chakim, M. Lutfi
Indonesia Law Review
Publisher : UI Scholars Hub

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

Freedom of speech is a constitutional right that must be protected in a democratic society. However, there is an alarming problem in many countries where governments limit freedom of speech by targeting people espousing views contrary to those of the government. Many free speech cases handled by the Constitutional Courts of Indonesia and Korea demonstrate a gradual decline in the quality of democracy there. This article aims to assess the extent to which the Constitutional Courts’ role and responsibilities contribute to the protection of freedom of speech. Through its decisions, the Constitutional Courts in those two countries have contributed to institutionalizing freedom of speech as a permanent fixture of democracy by keeping the state institutions transparent and making the state responsive to public opinion and criticism. Although freedom of speech is not an absolute right and can be limited, the limitation should be done only under strict conditions, where it is required and proportionate. When dealing with freedom of speech cases in any future judgments, the Constitutional Courts should consider the proportionality test against State arguments. This method would allow the Courts to determine the limitation in freedom of speech cases.
Co-Authors