Maria Farida Presents the Establishment of Laws and Regulations
Image


There are some institutions that are not allowed to make their own laws as regulations made binding in the ‘self’ of their own, and not associated with the interests of the people. Institutions, of which the People’s Consultative Assembly, House of Representatives, Regional Representatives Council, Supreme Court, Constitutional Court, the Supreme Audit Agency, and the Judicial Commission.

This is stated by the Constitutional Court Justice Maria Farida Indrati when giving a public lecture in the presence of a number of UI Graduate Student on Tuesday (18/12) in the Conference Room of the Court. On that occasion, in addition to discussing the Constitutional Court, Maria also discussed the Law 12/2011 on the establishment of legislation.

"The governor, mayor or regent can make laws, but without criminal penalties. Regulations must be made administratively. For instance is a regulation concerning odd-even system settings to be applied by Jakarta Governor Jokowi. He can make rules governor, but cannot use sanctions," said Maria.

Mentioned about the regulations made by certain institutions, Maria reveals regulation can only to bind the institution itself. Mary exemplifies Court Rules are made to regulate the legal proceedings in the Court. "Similarly if the parliament, the Assembly, KY and MA made the rule, then it is to tune into. Yet sometimes there are also governed by the law delegating the Minister, when it should be stipulated in Presidential Regulation. Regulation can only be used to set up ministries from within, not to tie out (read: the people)," he said.

This, further Maria, should apply only to the parliamentary system led by a prime minister. "While we have a presidential system, the president should be set out in regulations," he said.

While on the Court, she explains now the Court was able to examine all laws established well before the change and after the change UUD1945 1945 Constitution. "If at that time I was already a constitutional judge, I would have filed a dissenting opinion. Should UUD1945 Act before the change and is of Dutch heritage replaced with new ones, such as the Criminal Code," he said.

On that occasion, she also explains the powers and liabilities owned by the Court. Not only that, she also explained the proceedings to the Court. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh)


Wednesday, December 19, 2012 | 11:51 WIB 167