Article Sidebar

Submitted
April 5, 2020
Accepted
May 21, 2021
Published
August 25, 2021
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 415 Download : 900

Main Article Content

Abstract

This article discusses the Supreme Court Decision Number 29 P/HUM/2019 on the Judicial Review of Article 7 and Article 9 paragraph (1) of Governor of Bali Regulation No. 97 of 2018 on Restrictions on the Generation of Single-use Plastic Waste. The Supreme Court (MA) rejected the applicant's application with a dedicendi ratio that the a quo Governor's Regulation was justifiable as it was based on the principle of decentralization and the impact of single-use plastic waste that pollutes or damages the environment. The legal issues highlighted relate to how the relationship between legal products in the form of legislation and regulations should be, as well as whether the Supreme Court's judicial considerations in its decisions are appropriate according to the law. The research method is done with conceptual and case study approaches. The results of the study that: First, legal products in the form of regulations are an elaboration of legislation, so that regulations may not create new legal norms. Second, the Supreme Court's judicial opinion is incorrect as it does not distinguish between legislation and regulation products, so there is an impression that everything can be regulated by regional legal products provided that it is in accordance with the regional conditions. In addition, the act of limiting Human Rights is only carried out through legislative products in the form of legislation (laws).

Keywords

Legislation plastic ban regulation

Article Details

How to Cite
Rauta, U., & Kurnia, T. S. (2021). Pengaturan Larangan Plastik Sekali Pakai: Kritik Terhadap Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 29 P/Hum/2019 Dari Perspektif Teori Dan Hukum Perundang-Undangan. Jurnal Hukum IUS QUIA IUSTUM, 28(3), 527–549. https://doi.org/10.20885/iustum.vol28.iss3.art4
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. Buku
  2. Crabbe, V.C.R.A.C, Legislative Precedents, Cavendish Publishing, London, 1998.
  3. Duxbury, Neil, The Nature and Authority of Precedent, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008.
  4. Jayawickrama, Nihal, The Judicial Application of Human Rights, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002.
  5. Kurnia, Titon Slamet, Interpretasi Hak-Hak Asasi Manusia oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia: The Jimly Court 2003 – 2008, Mandar Maju, Bandung, 2018.
  6. Lubis, Todung Mulya, In Search of Human Rights: Legal-Political Dilemmas of Indonesia’s New Order, 1966-1990, PT. Gramedia Pustaka Utama dan SPES Foundation, Jakarta, 1993.
  7. Marzuki, Peter Mahmud, Penelitian Hukum, Kencana, Jakarta, 2010.
  8. Strong, C.F., A History of Modern Political Constitutions, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, 1963.
  9. Jurnal
  10. Adriaan Bedner, “An Elementary Approach to the Rule of Law,” Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, Volume 2, 2010.
  11. Alessandra Spadaro, “Covid-19: Testing the Limits of Human Rights,” European Journal of Risk Regulation, Volume 11, Nomor 2, 2020.
  12. Andrew Edgar, “Administrative Regulation-Making: Contrasting Parliamentary and Deliberative Legitimacy,” Melbourne University Law Review, Volume. 40, Nomor 3, 2017.
  13. E. Prajwalita Widiati, dan Haidar Adam, “Pengawasan Terhadap Peraturan Kepala Daerah”, Jurnal Yuridika, Volume 27, Nomor 1, 2012.
  14. Eleanor D. Kinney, “The International Human Right to Health: What Does This Mean for Our Nation and World?,” Indiana Law Review, Volume 34, Nomor 4, 2001.
  15. Fajar Laksono Soeroso, “Linieritas Legislasi dan Adjudikasi Konstitusional Dalam Penegakan Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 (Analisis Terhadap Undang-Undang Pemilihan Gubernur, Bupati, Walikota)”, Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia, Volume 12, Nomor 2, 2015.
  16. Gabor Rona dan Lauren Aarons, “State Responsibility to Respect, Protect and Fulfill Human Rights Obligations in Cyberspace,” Journal of National Security, Law and Policy, Volume 8, Nomor 3, 2016.
  17. Heiner Bielefeldt, “Limiting Permissible Limitations: How to Preserve the Substance of Religious Freedom,” Religion and Human Rights, Volume 15, Nomor 1, 2020.
  18. Jeremy Waldron, “Representative Lawmaking,” Boston University Law Review, Volume 89, Nomor 2, 2009.
  19. Jernej Letnar Cernic, “State Obligations Concercing Indigenous Peoples' Rights to Their Ancestral Lands: Lex Imperfecta?,” American University International Law Review, Volume 28, Nomor 4, 2013.
  20. John Burrows, “Legislation: Primary, Secondary and Tertiary,” Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, Volume 42, Nomor 1, 2011.
  21. Jurgen Habermas, “On the Internal Relation between the Rule of Law and Democracy,” European Journal of Philosophy, Volume 3, Nomor 1, 1995.
  22. Lorne Neudorf, “Reassessing the Constitutional Foundation of Delegated Legislation in Canada,” Dalhousie Law Journal, Volume 41, Nomor 2, 2018.
  23. Malcolm Langford, “The United Nations Concept of Water as a Human Right: A New Paradigm for Old Problem?,” Water Resources Development, Volume 21, Nomor 2, 2005.
  24. Martin Krygier, “Law as Tradition,” Law and Philosophy, Volume 5, 1986.
  25. Mary Garvey Algero, “The Sources of Law and the Value of Precedent: A Comparative and Empirical Study of a Civil Law State in a Common Law Nation,” Lousiana Law Review, Volume 65, Nomor 2, 2005.
  26. Monika Hakimi, “State Bystander Responsibility,” European Journal of International Law, Volume 21, Nomor 2, 2010.
  27. Nina Varsava, “How to Realize the Value of Stare Decisis: Options for Following Precedent”, Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities, Volume 30, Nomor 2, 2018.
  28. Nir Kosti, David Levi-Faur, dan Guy Mor, “Legislation and Regulation: Three Analytical Distinctions,” The Theory and Practice of Legislation, Volume 7, Nomor 3, 2020.
  29. Pauline C., Westerman “The Rule of Law as Export Product,” The Theory and Practice of Legislation, Volume 5, Nomor 2, 2017.
  30. Rebecca Thorburn Stern, “When the Ends Justify the Means? Quality of Law-Making in Times of Urgency,” The Theory and Practice of Legislation, Volume 7, Nomor 2, 2019, hlm. 85-100.
  31. Samantha Besson, “The Bearers of Human Rights’ Duties and Reponsibilities for Human Rights: A Quiet (R)evolution?,” Social Philosophy and Policy, Volume 32, Nomor 1, 2015.
  32. Sigrun I. Skogly, “Right to Adeqaute Food: National Implementation and Extraterritorial Obligations”, Max Planck Yearbook of International Law, Volume 11, 2007.
  33. Terry Hutchinson, “The Doctrinal Method: Incorporating Interdisciplinary Method in Reforming the Law,” Erasmus Law Review, Nomor 3, 2015.
  34. Terry Hutchinson dan Nigel Duncan, “Defining and Describing What We Do: Doctrinal Legal Research,” Deakin Law Review, Volume 17, Nomor 1, 2012.
  35. Titon Slamet Kurnia, “Prediktabilitas Ajudikasi Konstitusional: Mahkamah Konstitusi dan Pengujian Undang-Undang,” Jurnal Konstitusi, Volume 12, Nomor 2, 2016.
  36. _______, dan Krishna D. Darumurti, “Mahkamah Konstitusi dan Desain Hubungan Pusat-Daerah Berdasarkan Asas Negara Kesatuan,” Jurnal Majelis, Edisi 03, 2020.
  37. Peraturan Perundang-undangan
  38. Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945.
  39. Undang-Undang Nomor 39 Tahun 1999 tentang Hak Asasi Manusia.
  40. Undang-Undang Nomor 32 Tahun 2009 tentang Perlindungan dan Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup.
  41. Undang-Undang Nomor 12 Tahun 2011 Tentang Pembentukan Peraturan Perundang-undangan, sebagaimana telah diubah dengan Undang-Undang Nomor 15 Tahun 2019.
  42. Undang-Undang Nomor 23 Tahun 2014 tentang Pemerintahan Daerah, sebagaimana telah diubah, terakhir dengan Undang-Undang Nomor 9 Tahun 2015.
  43. Undang -Undang Nomor 18 Tahun 2008 tentang Pengelolaan Sampah.
  44. Putusan Pengadilan dan lain-lain
  45. Advisory Opinion OC-6/86 oleh Inter-American Court of Human Rights.
  46. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 18: The Right to Work, E/C.12/GC/18, 6 February 2006.
  47. Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 46 P/HUM/2018.
  48. Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 29 P/HUM/2019.

Most read articles by the same author(s)