English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia plays the primary role in reviewing the constitutionality of the norms. However, 45 Constitutional Court Decisions (related to exiting criminal acts) made during the period of 2003–2020, as which this study examined revealed the Court tendency to go beyond its formal authority, in the sense of establishing new legal norms. Considering the legality principle, it is suggested that the practice of criminal norm making should be tightly controlled and restricted. For that purpose, the authors suggest that the court decide to make new criminal norms only with the purpose of clarifying obscure wording and society’s express needed demand. With this restriction, it is hoped that the Constitutional Court will not exceed its authority. Restrictions are needed given the need for the Constitutional Court to formulate norms. There are at least 5 (five) basic reasons for the need for judicial activism in the Constitutional Court, namely: (1) The Court as the final interpreter of the constitution; (2) A violation of the constitution; (3) Executive and legislative indifference; (4) Open questions in the Act; and (5) The existence of responsiveness and innovation from the Constitutional Court.

Constitutional review of criminal norms: does Indonesia need judicial activism?