Analisis Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 20/PUU-XIV/2016 Tentang Perekaman yang Dilakukan Secara Tidak Sah
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47766/tanfidziy.v1i2.947Keywords:
Constitutional Court, Decision Analysis, Recording InvalidAbstract
This thesis describes the Analysis of the Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 20/PUU-XIV/2016 regarding the illegal trial. Initially, the circulation of a recording of a conversation allegedly heard between Setya Novanto and Ma'roef Sjamsudin (Principal Director of PT. Freeport Indonesia) was recorded secretly without the knowledge of the relevant parties. This type of research is normative juridical using secondary data consisting of primary legal materials and secondary legal materials. The results of the study explain that, the Basis and Considerations of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 20/PUU-XIV/2016 concerning Illegal Recordings is declared rejected, because what is disputed by the Petitioner has been fulfilled by the ITE Law, especially Article 31 paragraph (3 ) Act a quo, so there is no conflict of norms. The juridical implications of the basis and considerations of the Constitutional Court Decision for law enforcement in Indonesia, if used as evidence for wiretapping and recording, must comply with the law. However, in law enforcement this actually narrows the use of electronic documents/electronic information
References
Arikunto, Suharsimi. Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktek. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta, 2002.
Dr. Martitah. Mahkamah Konstitusi Dari Negative Legislature Ke Positive Legislature? Cet Ke-2. Jakarta: Konstitusi Press, 2016.
Hasbulloh, Ahmad Rifqi. “Analisis Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 20/Puu- Xiv/2016 Terhadap Kewenangan Penyadapan Kpk.” Universitas Islam Indonesia Yogyakarta, 2017.
Heryogi, Arief, Masruchin Ruba’i, And Bambang Sugiri. “Fungsi Bukti Elektronik Dalam Hukum Acara Pidana Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 20/Puu-Xiv/2016.” Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Pancasila dan Kewarganegaraan 2, No. 1 (2017): 7–17. https://doi.org/10.17977/um019v2i12017 p007.
Iqbal, Imron Dan Muhamad. Hukum Pembuktian. Cetakan Pe. Banten: Unpam Press, 2017.
Johansyah. “Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Bersifat Final Dan Mengikat (Binding) Johansyah Fakultas Hukum Universitas Palembang Pendahuluan Reformasi Di Berbagai Sektor Ketatanegaraan Indonesia Tak Sehingga Menjadi Slogan Umum Yang Disepakati Oleh Khalayak . Reformasi.” Solusi 19, No. 2 (2021): 165–82. https://doi.org /https://doi.org/10.36546/solusi.v19i2.
Mahkamah Konstitusi. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 20/Puu-Xiv/2016, 22 Keputusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Atas Permohonan Pengujian Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2008 Tentang Informasi Dan Transaksi Elektronik Dan Uu No. 20 Tahun 2001 Tentang Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 31 Tahun 1999 Tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Koru § (2016). Https://Www.Mkri.Id/Public/Content/Persidangan/Putusan/22_Puu-Xv_2017.Pdf.
———. “Sejarah Dan Perkembangan Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia,” 2022. Https:// Www.Mkri.Id/ Index. Php?Page=Web.Profilmk&Id=1&Menu=2.
Majelis Umum Pbb. “Deklarasi Universal Hak-Hak Asasi Manusia.” Indonesian Journal Of International Law 4, No. 1 (1948): 133–68.
Marzuki, Prof. Dr. Peter Mahmud. Penelitian Hukum: Edidi Revisi. Jakarta Timur: Kencana Prenada Media Group, 2019.
Soerjono Soekanto. Pengantar Penelitian Hukum. Jakarta: Ui-Press, 2010.
Sugiono Margi, And Maulida Khazanah. “Kedudukan Mahkamah Konstitusi Dalam Kelembagaan Negara.” Jurnal Rechten : Riset Hukum Dan Hak Asasi Manusia 1, No. 3 (2022). https://doi.org/10.52005/rechten.v1i3.48.
Tri Jata Ayu Pramesti, S.H. “Perbedaan Menyadap Dan Merekam.” Hukum Online, 2017. Https://Www.Hukumonline.Com/Klinik/A/Perbedaan-Menyadap-Dan-Merekam-Lt566f607210efa.
Tutik, Titik Triwulan, And Nunuk Nuswardani. Restorasi Hukum Tata Negara Indonesia Berdasarkan Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945. Edited By Nunuk Nuswardani. Edisi Pert. Depok: Prenadamedia Group, 2017.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Juliani Juliani
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
