Interpretation Of Judges In Supreme Court Decision Number: 46 P/HUM/2018

  • Muslim Andi Yusuf Universitas Cokroaminoto Palopo
  • Dharma Fidyansari Universitas Cokroaminoto Palopo

Abstract

This research was conducted to determine the interpretation of judges in the Supreme Court Decision No. 46 P/HUM/2018. This study uses a normative type of research with an approach to identifying legislation and literature that is relevant to research. Data collected from primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials are analyzed qualitatively, arranged systematically, and presented descriptively. The results of this study indicate that in the Supreme Court Decision Number 46 P/HUM/2018 which judges that Article 4 paragraph (3), Article 11 Paragraph (1) Letter d and Appendix Model B.3 Election Commission Regulation Number 20 of 2018 is contradictory to Law Number 17 of 2017 concerning General Election in conjunction with Law Number 12 of 2011 concerning Formation of Regulations and Judges’ Considerations based on the interpretation of the testing object test stones namely the sentences in the text of Law Number 7 of 2017 concerning General Elections and Law Number 12 of 2011 concerning Formation of Legislation as a guide so that the interpretation of judges is based on exploring the meaning contained in the statement written norm text by studying the book in sentence structure or its relationship with other rules.

Published
Dec 9, 2019
How to Cite
YUSUF, Muslim Andi; FIDYANSARI, Dharma. Interpretation Of Judges In Supreme Court Decision Number: 46 P/HUM/2018. Substantive Justice International Journal of Law, [S.l.], v. 2, n. 2, p. 147-160, dec. 2019. ISSN 2599-0462. Available at: <https://substantivejustice.id/index.php/sucila/article/view/43>. Date accessed: 03 mar. 2021.
Citation Formats
Issue
Vol 2 No 2 (2019): Substantive Justice International Journal of Law
Section
Articles
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish in the Substantive Justice International Journal of Law agree with the following conditions:

  1. The author owns the copyright and gives the journal rights to the first publication with the work being simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which allows others to share the work with the authorship of the authorship and the initial publication in this journal.
  2. The author owns the copyright and other ownership rights related to the article, such as patents, the right to use the substance of the article in their own future work, including lectures and books, the right to self-archive the article, the right to enter into separate articles, contractual arrangements additional to the non-exclusive distribution of the published version of the article (e.g., posting it to an institutional repository or publishing it in a book), with acknowledgment of the initial publication in this journal
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (for example, in institutional repositories or on their websites) before and during the submission process because it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and larger quotations of published works.