RECALL ASWANTO: TERTUTUPNYA RUANG DISAGREEMENT ANTARA PEMBENTUK UNDANG-UNDANG DAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article discusses the recall directed to Justice Aswanto of the Constitutional Court during his tenure by the House of Representatives (DPR). The DPR recalls Justice Aswanto due to its disagreement with his judicial performance. According to the law, the Constitutional Court Justices may only be removed from office during his/her tenure through the Ethical Council of the Constitutional Court. This article argues that the recall is inconsistent with the principle of security of tenure and, therefore, contradicts the principle of judicial independence. Unfortunately, this issue is not the main problem. The primary issue is that the legislature has no room to disagree with the Constitutional Court's interpretation in reviewing the constitutionality of legislation. This issue arises because the Constitution, UUD 1945, allocates the finality of the constitutional review mechanism in the judiciary. In solving the issue, this article refers to the Canadian model of constitutional review. The concept of the Canadian model is a judicial review with legislative finality.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it