Asmayandi, Gatot Dwi Hendro Wibowo, RR. Cahyowati

Abstract:

The relationship between state institutions is based on the principle of check and balances. In the implementation of the authority of state institutions there can be differences in interpretation of the Constitution, so that there is a dispute over the authority of state institutions. If a dispute over the authority of a state institution whose authority is granted by the 1945 Constitution, then there is a judicial institution to solve it, namely the Constitutional Court. But what if the dispute over the authority of state institutions whose authority is not granted by the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, there is a legal vacuum. In the constitutional practice, the dispute over the authority of state institutions whose authorities are not regulated in the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia is resolved by the President by bringing together the leaders of the disputed state institutions, such as the case of the KPK and Polri regarding alleged corruption of the SIM Traffic Corps simulator. If it is analyzed that the South Korean Constitutional Court may settle any dispute of state institutions, irrespective of whether or not the state institution is authorized by the Constitution. In the case of resolving the dispute over the authority of state institutions, the South Korean Constitutional Court is different from the Indonesian Constitutional Court. Indonesia’s Constitutional Court in solving the dispute over the authority of state institutions is limited to state institutions whose authorities are granted by the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.

Keywords: dispute authority, state institution, settlement

Full Text: PDF