Search

Observing the follow-up of state law-forming institutions (House of Representative and President) after the Constitutional Court Decision is a wise step for the development of legal knowledge. This study uses a normative juridical approach. The results of the study: (i) legal order (injunction) in the ruling section, while legal order (advice) contained in legal considerations and, (ii) follow-up to legal order (injunction) contained in the Constitutional Court's rulings that have been implemented. and some have not been implemented because it has not reached the specified time limit. Meanwhile, the legal order (advice) of the related Constitutional Court decision has been implemented. In the end, it can be concluded that in a decision of the Constitutional Court there are two categories of legal order, namely injunction and advice, which have been implemented by the legislators. Although some have not been implemented because it has not reached the specified time limit.

The formation of special institutions regulated by law has the same status as those regulated in constitution (constitutional importance). The purpose of this paper is to determine the urgency of the existence of a special state institution that has a constitutional importance in Indonesia's strictness system, in this case the state institutions are the National Human Rights Commission and the KPK. The writing method used is to use normative legal research. The results of the discussion illustrate that the emergence of a new state institution that is regulated by law, namely as a functional institution that handles a problem within their respective scope. The conclusion is that to overcome the complexity of problems that arise in society. The recommendation in this writing seeks to ensure that institutions which have the same degree as existing institutions are constituted to be included in the constitution in order to strengthen their position and authority.

The amendment of Article 1 Paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia indicates the affirmation of Article 4 Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, namely the affirmation of a presidential government system by affirming the position of the President as head of state as head of government of government) can not be separated and elected directly by the people, so that the President has the authority as "the sobereigh executive" to run "independent power" and "inherent power", while establishing the separation of power in establishing cheks and balances among state institutions. Prior to the amendment of the 1945 Constitution, the institutional system adopted is the separation of power but is often referred to as the distribution of power. The President not only holds the highest administrative power (executive but also holds the power to form legislation or legislative powers together with the DPR as his co-legislator, while the question of judicial power (judicial in the 1945 Constitution before changes are made by a Supreme Court and other judicial bodies according to the law. Given the change of power of the formation of a law which was originally owned by the President to be owned by the House of Representatives based on the amendment of the 1945 Constitution, especially Article 5 paragraph (1) and Pasa1 20 paragraph (1), the so-called legislative body (main) DPR, while the executive is the President. Although the process of making a law requires the approval of the President, but the function of the President in this case is as co-legislator as the DPD for the material of a particular law, not as the main legislator. While the judicial authority (judicative conducted by the Supreme Court (and the judicial bodies under it) and the Constitutional Court under Article 24 paragraph (2) of the 1945 NRI Constitution. Structuring the building of presidential government system, as well as other state institutions (DPR, MPR, DPD, MA and MK) within the framework of the 1945 Constitution of 1945 should be harmonized and synchronized to prevent the occurrence of various disorders among state institutions.

This paper takes the title: "Legal Standing of the Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi (KPK) in Case Dispute Authority of State Institutions in the Mahkamah Konstitusi". The research in this paper addresses two problems that are associated with the KPK as a state institution in the UUD NRI 1945 and the legal standing of the KPK, which can be a Party to the Dispute Authority of State Institutions in the Mahkamah Konstitusi by the UUD NRI 1945. The method used in this research is normative legal research, because this research seeks to discuss or review the legal norm in this case the norms of legislation to determine the synchronization either vertically or horizontally. This thesis explains that the KPK is a state agency whose authority is not clearly regulated by the UUD NRI 1945. Therefore, the KPK does not have legal standing as an applicant or respondent in a lawsuit filed in the Mahkamah Konstitusi relating to dispute the authority of state institutions because the authority is the Commission does not expressly provided in UUD NRI Tahun 1945 but by law.