Suchergebnisse

Constitutional structure -- The judicial power -- Statutory interpretation -- The power of the police -- Speech -- Religion -- Social regulation

The main purpose of the article is to analyze the content of dissenting opinions of the judges of the Constitutional Court of Russia regarding the implementation of freedom of peaceful assembly. The author concluded that in 2009–2020, there were three judgements (postanovlenie) and one decision (opredelenie) by the Constitutional Court of Russia (hereinafter also referred to as the CCR) that were accompanied by dissenting opinions of CCR judges. In 2013, one single judgment of the CCR was accompanied by three dissenting opinions. This research analyzes the six dissenting opinions of the judges of the Russian Constitutional Court, which considered various problematic issues regarding the implementation of freedom of peaceful assembly in the contemporary Russian Federation. The author also analyzes the role and significance of the dissenting opinions in the context of amendments to the Russian Constitution in 2020, and changes in legislation that significantly limited the publicity of dissenting opinions of CCR judges. This article shows the role of dissenting opinions as: a means to raising the level of legal consciousness in society, a guarantee of a fair and open trial, a guarantee of the independence of judiciary and judicial democracy, and a means of improving legislation and law enforcement practice. The author concludes that the CCR judges' dissenting opinions could in some cases be regarded as "sleeping law", because the European Court of Human Rights later confirmed the judges' minority report in findings. The article uses traditional research methods such as analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, logical method, and comparative legal methods. The author expresses that it is necessary to keep the democratic tradition of constitutional justice, which allowed the publicity of dissenting opinions of CCR judges during 1991–2020. It is also concluded that the dissenting opinions of the Constitutional Court judges enable a deeper understanding of the political and legal nature, features, and main stages of the development of Russian public assembly law, one of direct democracy's most important institutions alongside elections and referendums. The author argues that dissenting opinions of the judges of the Constitutional Court of Russia make it possible to identify gaps and defects in the legal regulation of public events in Russia. The study was funded by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR) and the Expert Institute for Social Research (EISR) in the framework of the research project no.20-011-31740.

Dissenting opinion is the difference of opinion between the Tribunal judges who handle certain a matter with other judges of the Tribunal dealing with certain cases. Dissenting opinion does not have the force of law because it cannot be the Foundation for the inception of the award. Dissenting opinion itself is an aspect of the law that need to be examined in order to prevent the formation of false opinion among the public. So, nowadays have started to formed the perception that dissenting opinion was an engineering law, instead of enforcing the rule of law but rather media that gave the opportunity for the defendant in corruption regardless of criminal trapping; but on the other hand is a form of difference of opinion and the independence of the judges as the metre is guaranteed by the provisions of the law; that the importance of dissenting opinion in the Court ruling was the judge's opinion be weighted, in an attempt of law appeal or cassation; as an indicator to determine the career judge, as an attempt to avoid the practice of corruption, Collusion and Nepotism (KKN) and the judicial mafia; as a real step towards the transparency of judicial democratization; the judiciary; and kemandiarian the judge require the freedom of speech.

Penelitian ini mengkaji mengenai dissenting opinion dalam Putusan Nomor 138/PUU-VII/2009, pada saat uji materi . Sehingga perbedaan pendapat tersebut berimplikasi terhadap dua hal, yaitu; pertama, memberikan keleluasaan bagi setiap hakim untuk menggali, mengikuti, dan memahami nilai-nilai hukum dan rasa keadilan yang hidup dalam masyarakat.Kedua, menjadi bahan evaluasi dan kajian bagi masyarakat untuk memetakan putusan-putusan hakim yang memang didasarkan terhadap keadilan prosedural dan keadilan substantif.Dissenting opinion hakim Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam perkembangannya berpengaruh terhadap tingkat kesadaran hukum masyarakat, sehingga dengan adanya dissenting opinion paradigma berpikir masyarakat tentang independensi hakim dapat memunculkan putusan yang berkualitas.Penelitian ini menggunakan paradigma interpretatif dengan metode kualitatif deskriptif.Sumber dari penelitian ini adalah putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi (Putusan Nomor138/PUU-VII/2009) yang dikorelasikan dengan peraturan perundang-undangan yang mengatur mengenai dissenting opinion hakim Mahkamah Konstitusi.Analisis permasalahan dalam penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan politik hukum dan dua teori, yaitu teori kewenangan dan teori teleologi.