Differences between Parliamentary system and Presidential system [Judiciary] In relating both systems, parliamentary and presidential systems are currently using different judiciary system to enforce law in society. Before entering judiciary segment, it is essential to understand the definition of judiciary where it can be noted that:- “…Judiciary is commonly considered the third branch of government. It stabilizes the political system by solving disputes involving the country’s law…” (Barrington, 2010, p. 280) “…It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is…” John Marshall cited in (Woll, 1992, p. 51) From this definition above, the judiciary simply implies the body or branch that play important role in interpretation of the law and solving matters relating to legal issue. Both Parliamentary and Presidential system does also exhibit Judiciary bodies but portrays different function to one another where it can be noted that:- In United Kingdom: – “…Their jurisdiction over civil cases extended to the United Kingdom as a whole but only for England, Wales and Northern Island in criminal…” (Barrington, 2010, p. 85) Meaning to say that “Law of Lords” have jurisdiction in for the whole states in United Kingdom, but in England, Wales, and Northern Island the Law of Lord are function in decision making of criminal cases. This different with United States of America which is “…The doctrine of separation of power operates on two levels. On the national level, the authority of the federal government is divided among three distinct competitive and mutually involved branches. On another level, power is split between national and state government…” (Woll, 1992, p. 255)
From the quotation above show that separations of power have two levels, for the first level is in the federal government have three branches which are Legislature, Judiciary and Executive that different with each other but it actually involved each other to ensure that the government run smoothly. Another difference between these two countries is the Constitution. In United Kingdom constitutional are unwritten that is different with United States of America that have written Constitution from the beginning of United State are founded. Law in United States of America are recorded.
In United Kingdom the House of Lords are consisting twelve “Lords of Appeal in Ordinary” that also called “Law of Lords”. In United Kingdom are applying the independence of judiciary which is needed to be:- United Kingdom:- “…insulated from scrutiny, general accountability for their role or properly made public criticisms of conduct inside or outside the court room…’ (Lords, 2007, p. 13) Contra with United States of America that:- “Although the states were no longer equal to the central government, they still retained a fair amount of sovereignty.
In the other hand United States of America there are Federalism and the Judiciary. Judiciary in State and National have issue on sovereignty and have been settling by Civil War which is bringing the inequalities to the states then central government. From the statement above can show that the judiciary part in United States of America which is both state and federal government have a same sovereignty in this country as long as the law are not contradict with Constitution of Federal law.
This is different with United Kingdom that used the Fusion of power which is all branch of government are mixed up each other because in United Kingdom are using the parliamentary system. Administration of law in United Kingdom is different with United States of America, this can shown in:- “…The United Kingdom does not have a single body of law applicable throughout the kingdom. Scotland has it is own distinctive system and courts, and in Northern Ireland certain spheres of law differ in substance from those operating in England and Wales.
The main civil courts in England and Wales are: • Magistrates’ Courts • County Courts for small cases and •The High Court, which is divided into • The Chancery Division, • The Family Division, and • The Queen’s Bench Division (including the maritime and commercial courts), for the more important cases…” (The United Kingdom Judicial System) But in United States of America the courts that operating are:- “…Supreme Courts consisted of six justices, who rode the circuit as judges of the Courts of Appeals.
The courts was reduced to five members at one time and expended to ten at another. Since 1869, The Supreme Courts has consistently had nine members. And since 1891, the justices have no had to serve on courts of appeal, although each justice has some responsibilities with at least one appeals court… ” (Woll, 1992, p. 268) The differences are can be shown when comparing the administration on judiciary branch. In United States of America the judiciary branches are administered by congress because:- “…Generally, Congress determines the jurisdiction of the federal courts.
In some cases, however — such as in the example of a dispute between two or more U. S. states — the Constitution grants the Supreme Court original jurisdiction, an authority that cannot be stripped by Congress…” (Judicial Branch) This showed us that the jurisdiction branches are dependable on congress to make an issue or solving problem regarding law for United States of America. Conclusion Conclusion that can be made from both of the countries in judiciary system are the system are totally different each other.
The differences can be seen on the jurisdiction of judiciary branch, function of judiciary branch in both system that is parliamentary system and presidential system, type of Constitution, and administration of judiciary branch in United Kingdom and United State of America. The judiciary branch in both systems is totally different function in making or interprets law, because there are no similarities in judiciary for both system and countries. The comparison that been made useful to studying the differences roles of judiciary in different system of government and countries.