ANALISIS YURIDIS NORMATIF PENYELESAIAN SENGKETA KEWENANGAN ANTAR LEMBAGA NEGARA BERSIFAT PENUNJANG YANG TERMUAT DALAM UNDANG-UNDANG DASAR 1945

Institute State in Constitution 1945 can be differentiated to become two namely institute State which the was him of given by Constitution 1945 (first) and State institute which the was him of given to pass Law (supporter). For State institute which the was him of given by Constitution 1945, in the event of dispute of\ud kewenangan caused to State institute annoyed him execution of authority or taken by authority by other State institute, hence the dispute can be finished to pass jurisdiction institute namely Lawcourt Constitution. The mentioned pursuant to section 24 C sentence (1), meanwhile for dispute between State institute have the character of\ud supporter of arrangement the solving of dispute authority there is no. Dimiciling state institute have the character of important is same supporter of him with State institute, though institute State have the character of supporter only as executor of especial State institute wisdom. But annoyed him institute State have the character of\ud supporter earn also bother stability in governance. To finish dispute of authority\ud between State institute have the character of our supporter use method of Yuridis Normatif to look for solution the solving of dispute authority between State institute have the character of supporter which not yet been arranged. Impact not yet been arranged mechanism him and also institute which jurisdiction in charge to finish dispute of authority between State institute, hence better MK can share in the mentioned. Because understanding of given State institute\ud authority is Constitution 1945 not be interpreted that the authority have to is expressly mentioned (verbies expressis) because problems dynamics and growth which cannot anticipate perfectly by maker of Constitution 1945 causing the existence of interpretation which giving extension to see authority truthfully stick and implicit in the mentioned authority expressly, which can viewed as principle authority. The authority which do not is expressly referred as in constitution but is matter which need and make proper to run constitutional authority which given expressly, is as well as sticking as authority given by Constitution 1945, though was then elaborated expressly in Law as executor of Constitution 1945. Arrangement something items of authority in one Law, is not by itself cause the the authority is not constitutional authority, is on the contrary referred as him one authority in Law not\ud always mean that the Law become the source of authority the suchness. Authorization steming from Law is not mean the the authority not constitutional because Law also come from Constitution 1945, so that for State supporter institute earn isn't at State institute able to problem to MK in dispute of authority State institute is jurisdiction of MK which have up to standard of dispute object and subjek of Zuthority State institute. \u