Polemik Mahkamah Kontitusi Terhadap Pertimbangan Open Legal Policy dalam Putusan Perkara Perpanjangan Masa Jabatan Pimpinan Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi (KPK)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31933/unesrev.v6i2.1531Keywords:
Constitutional Court, Term of Office, Open Legal PolicyAbstract
The importance of the Constitutional Court giving birth to decisions that contain substantial justice to what the community needs, one of which is to examine the law against the 1945 Constitution (UUD 1945). The authority of the Constitutional Court is actually allowed to go beyond what is stated in the law, only if the law confines the Constitutional Court judges in upholding justice such as Positive Legislature. In Decision Number 112/PUU-XX/2022, the Constitutional Court granted a judicial review request against Law Number 19 of 2019. One of the Court's decisions was to grant a change in the term of office of the KPK leadership, which was originally 4 years to 5 years in one term. This decision is actually the domain of lawmaking institutions, the Constitutional Court's view on open legal policy is part of a policy whose domain is outside of its competence in several specific articles in the law. Open legal policy actually needs to be given a limit by reflecting on its practice and foundation in several countries. This research uses a doctrinal research method which is a library legal research conducted by examining library materials or secondary data which is then supported by comparative studies of various countries. The results showed that the Constitutional Court should have rejected this case because it is an open legal policy that should be returned to the authority of the legislature. The Constitutional Court's decision on the extension of the KPK's term of office is controversial because it violates the principle of division of powers in state institutions. Its consideration was also not based on the urgent interests of citizens. Therefore, the author compares the practice with other countries, such as the United States, which overcomes the open legal policy gap with the use of the political questions doctrine, which provides clear boundaries to see a moment when the judiciary must take action with the orientation of restoring citizens' rights, and when it must refrain according to the concept of separation of powers. However, other countries such as Poland, Ukraine and Hungary have used open legal policy as a tool to reduce political attacks on the constitutional judiciary.
Downloads
References
Harman, Benny K. Mempertimbangkan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Bandung: Kepustakaan Populer Gramedia, 2013.
Soerjono Soekanto dan Sri Mamudji, Penelitian Hukum Normatif, Jakarta: Grafindo Persada, 2004
Sólyom, László, and Georg Brunner. Constitutional Judiciary in a New Democracy: The Hungarian Constitutional Court. University of Michigan Press, 2000.
Sri Mamudji, et al, Metode Penelitian dan Penulisan Hukum, Jakarta: Badan Penerbit Fakultas Hukum Universitas Indonesia, 2005
Thalib, Abdul Rasyid, and M Sh. Wewenang Mahkamah Konstitusi Dan Implikasinya Dalam Sistem Ketatanegaraan Republik Indonesia. Jakarta: PT Citra Aditya Bakti, 2018.
Faqih, Mariyadi. “Nilai-Nilai Filosofi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Yang Final Dan Mengikat.” Jurnal Konstitusi 7, no. 3 (2010): 97–118.
Fauzani, Muhammad Addi, and Fandi Nur Rohman. “Urgensi Rekonstruksi Mahkamah Konstitusi Dalam Memberikan Pertimbangan Kebijakan Hukum Terbuka (Open Legal Policy).” Justitia et Pax 35, no. 2 (2019).
Hantoro, Novianto Murti. “Periode Masa Jabatan Hakim Konstitusi Dan Implikasinya Terhadap Kemandirian Kekuasaan Kehakiman (Term of Office for Constitutional Justices and Its Implications against Judicial Independence).” Negara Hukum: Membangun Hukum Untuk Keadilan Dan Kesejahteraan 11, no. 2 (2020): 191–210.
Horowitz, Donald L. “Constitutional Courts: A Primer for Decision Makers.” J. Democracy 17 (2006): 125.
Mihradi, Raden Muhammad, Dinalara Dermawati Butarbutar, Nazaruddin Lathif, and Tiofanny Marselina. “The Decision of the Constitutional Court Which Is Positive Legislature and Their Implications on Substantial Democracy in Indonesia.” International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding 8, no. 12 (2021): 191–200.
Mulhern, J Peter. “In Defense of the Political Question Doctrine.” U. Pa. L. Rev. 137 (1988): 97.
Patra, Rommy. “Peran Mahkamah Konstitusi Sebagai Pengawal Demokrasi Di Indonesia.” Jurnal Komunikasi Hukum (JKH) 8, no. 2 (2022): 381–93.
Rishan, Idul. “Konsep Pengujian Formil Undang-Undang Di Mahkamah Konstitusi.” Jurnal Konstitusi 18, no. 1 (2021): 1–21.
Scharpf, Fritz W. “Judicial Review and the Political Question: A Functional Analysis.” The Yale Law Journal 75, no. 4 (1966): 517–97.
Siahaan, Maruarar. “Peran Mahkamah Konstitusi Dalam Penegakan Hukum Konstitusi.” Jurnal Hukum Ius Quia Iustum 16, no. 3 (2009): 357–78.
Soeroso, Fajar Laksono. “Aspek Keadilan Dalam Sifat Final Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi.” Jurnal Konstitusi 11, no. 1 (2014): 64–84.
———. “Pembangkangan Terhadap Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi.” Jurnal Yudisial 6, no. 3 (2013): 227–49.
Trochev, Alexei. “Editor’s Introduction: The Constitutional Court of Ukraine: Defining Separation of Power in Post-Orange Ukraine, February-July 2009.” Statutes and Decisions 45, no. 2 (2010): 5–9.
Undang-Undang Nomor 19 Tahun 2019 tentang Perubahan Kedua Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2002 tentang Komisi Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi (Lembaran Negara No. 197, Tambahan Lembaran Negara No. 6409).
Undang-Undang Nomor 24 Tahun 2003 tentang Mahkamah Konstitusi (Lembaran Negara Nomor 98, Tambahan Lembaran Negara No. 4316)
Putusan Perkara Nomor 112/PUU-XX/2022
