Constitutionality Of MPR Decisions In The Hierarchy Of Legislation According To Constitutional Theory

Abstract

This legal writing discusses the CONSTITUTIONALITY OF MPR DECISIONS IN THE HIERARCHY OF LEGISLATION ACCORDING TO CONSTITUTIONAL THEORY. The approach to this legal research is normative legal research or library legal research, namely research carried out by studying library materials or also called secondary data. The specifications of this legal research are analytical descriptive. The legal materials used are primary legal materials and secondary legal materials, namely legal books and legal journals. The data collection and retrieval procedure used in this research is library research. The data obtained from the research will then be analyzed using qualitative descriptive data analysis techniques, namely by providing an interpretation of the data obtained rationally and objectively. From the discussion he has presented above, the conclusion that can be drawn regarding the constitutionality of the MPR TAP in the hierarchy of legislative order in Indonesia is that the constitutionality of a statutory regulation can be carried out by testing the statutory regulation. Indonesia has two judicial institutions that carry out reviews of statutory regulations, namely the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court. The authority of the Constitutional Court is to review statutory regulations against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, while the authority of the Supreme Court is to review statutory regulations under the law against the law. If you look at the tests above, it is clear that there is no authority to carry out tests on MPR Decrees. The absence of testing of MPR decisions raises the question of whether they are still relevant if MPR decisions are still included in the hierarchy of statutory regulations.