Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The Constitutional Court has the authority to determine the addressed subject in order to make adjustments to laws that have been assessed or interpreted for their constitutionality. This determination usually only applies to applications that are granted and not applications that are rejected in their entirety. In Decision Number 20/PUU-XIX/2021 (Case for Reviewing Article 50 paragraph (4) of Law Number 14 of 2005 on Teachers and Lecturers in conformity with the 1945 Constitution), the Court emphasized in the Legal Considerations section two facts that were proven to be sufficiently justified in accordance with the law, which then became the basis for the Court to instruct the addressed subject to be adjusted. The issue to be addressed in this study is, do the legal considerations (Court Opinion) in the decision have the similar legally binding force as the decisive ruling. This is a normative legal research, accompanied by the use of a statutory approach, a case approach, and a conceptual approach. The results of the study indicate that based on the implementation of Decision Number 20/PUU-XIX/2021, legal reasoning, both ratio decidendi and obiter dicta, have the same legally binding force as the ruling. Legal considerations in a decision can be a "formal legal source" in the preparation of decisions and/or state administrative actions, and become a guideline (morally binding) in the formation of PERPU and laws. Specifically for constitutional courts, legal considerations are perfectly binding on the addressed subject if desired by the Court, especially because legal considerations are an authentic interpretation of the judge regarding a case of the constitutionality of a law. The Court's legal considerations therefore need to be positioned as the basis for regulating (legally binding) the formation of laws, so that explicit affirmation is needed in the relevant laws, especially the Constitutional Court Law regarding the binding force of legal considerations as an inseparable part of the decision.
Keywords: Constitutional Court, Judicial Decisions, Legal Considerations.
Abstrak
Mahkamah Konstitusi dapat menetapkan adressat putusan untuk melakukan penyesuaian terhadap undang-undang yang telah dinilai atau ditafsirkan konstitusionalitasnya. Penetapan ini, lazimnya hanya berlaku kepada permohonan yang dikabulkan dan bukan permohonan yang ditolak untuk seluruhnya. Pada Putusan Nomor 20/PUU-XIX/2021 (Perkara Pengujian Pasal 50 ayat (4) Undang-Undang Nomor 14 Tahun 2005 tentang Guru dan Dosen terhadap UUD 1945), dalam bagian Pertimbangan Hukum, Mahkamah menegaskan dua fakta yang terbukti cukup beralasan menurut hukum, yang kemudian menjadi dasar Mahkamah menginstruksikan kepada adressat putusan untuk ditindaklajuti. Permasalahan yang ingin dijawab dalam penelitian ini adalah apakah pertimbangan hukum (Pendapat Mahkamah) dalam putusan memiliki kekuatan hukum mengikat yang sama sebagaimana amar putusan. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum normatif yang disertai penggunaan pendekatan peraturan perundang-undangan, pendekatan kasus, dan pendekatan konseptual. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan, berdasarkan implementasi Putusan Nomor 20/PUU-XIX/2021, pertimbangan hukum (legal reasoning), baik yang bersifat ratio decidendi maupun obiter dicta, memiliki kekuatan hukum mengikat yang sama sebagaimana amar putusan. Pertimbangan hukum dalam putusan dapat menjadi ‘sumber hukum formil’ dalam penyusunan keputusan dan/atau tindakan tata usaha negara, dan menjadi pedoman (morally binding) dalam pembentukan perppu dan undang-undang. Khusus peradilan konstitusional, pertimbangan hukum mengikat secara sempurna terhadap adressat putusan apabila dikehendaki oleh Mahkamah, terutama karena pertimbangan hukum merupakan tafsiran atau interpretasi otentik hakim terhadap suatu perkara konstitusionalitas undang-undang. Pertimbangan hukum Mahkamah, karenanya perlu diposisikan sebagai dasar pengaturan (legally binding) pembentukan undang-undang, sehingga diperlukan penegasan secara eksplisit dalam undang-undang terkait, terutama Undang-Undang Mahkamah Konstitusi perihal kekuatan mengikat pertimbangan hukum sebagai bagian tidak terpisahkan dari putusan.
Kata Kunci: Mahkamah Konstitusi, Pertimbangan Hukum, Putusan Peradilan.
Keywords
Article Details
Copyright (c) 2024 Gunawan A. Tauda
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
a. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
b. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
References
Agustine, Viana. “Keberlakuan Yurisprudensi Pada Kewenangan Pengujian Undang-Undang dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi.” Jurnal Konstitusi 15, no. 2 (September 2018): 642–65. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1539.
Arista, Meika. “Kapan Pertimbangan Putusan MK Dikatakan Mengikat dan Tidak Mengikat?,” November 2019. https://www.hukumonline.com/klinik/a/kapan-pertimbangan-putusan-mk-dikatakan-mengikat-dan-tidak-mengikat-lt5c860ff16a550/.
Asy’ari, Syukri, Meyrinda Rahmawaty Hilipito, and Mohammad Mahrus Ali. “Model dan Implementasi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam Pengujian Undang-Undang (Studi Putusan Tahun 2003-2012).” Jurnal Konstitusi 10, no. 4 (December 2013): 675–708. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1046.
Carlin, Ryan E, Mariana Castrellón, Varun Gauri, Isabel Cristina Jaramillo Sierra, and Jeffrey K Staton. “Public Reactions to Noncompliance with Judicial Orders.” American Political Science Review 116, no. 1 (2022): 265–82. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055421000903.
Dahlman, Christian, and Eveline Feteris. “Introduction.” in Legal Argumentation Theory: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives. New York: Springer, 2013.
Domselaar, Iris van. “A Neo-Aristotelian Notion of Reciprocity: About Civic Friendship and (the Troublesome Character of) Right Judicial Decisions.” In Aristotle and The Philosophy of Law: Theory, Practice and Justice. New York: Springer, 2013.
Hakim, Arief Rachman, Yulita Dwi Pratiwi, Syahrir Syahrir, Wahyu Aliansa, and Aisyah Anudya Palupi. “Kekuatan Hukum Pertimbangan Hakim Mahkamah Konstitusi Mengenai Penjabat Kepala Daerah.” Jurnal USM Law Review 6, no. 1 (April 2023): 15–33. https://doi.org/10.26623/julr.v6i1.5853.
Huda, Ni’matul. “Pengujian Perppu oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi.” Jurnal Konstitusi 7, no. 5 (October 2010): 73–91. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31078/jk754.
Hughes, Robert C. “The Ethics of Obeying Judicial Orders in Flawed Societies.” Res Publica 26, no. 4 (June 2020): 559–75. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-020-09471-3.
Laksono, Fajar. “Relasi Antara Mahkamah Konstitusi Dengan Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat dan Presiden Selaku Pembentuk Undang-Undang (Studi Terhadap Dinamika Pelaksanaan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Melalui Legislasi Tahun 2004-2015).” Disertasi, Program Studi Doktor Ilmu Hukum, Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Brawijaya, 2017.
Larenggam, Masni. “Urgensi Obiter Dicta dalam Putusan Hakil Perkara Perdata.” Lex et Societatis 3, no. 10 (November 2015): 94–101.
Lucke, H K. “Ratio Decidendi: Adjudicative Rational and Source of Law.” Bond Law Review 1, no. 1 (1989): 36–51.
Marzuki, Peter Mahmud. Penelitian Hukum. Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Mulia, 2009.
Maulidi, M Agus. “Menyoal Kekuatan Eksekutorial Putusan Final dan Mengikat Mahkamah Konstitusi.” Jurnal Konstitusi 16, no. 2 (June 2019): 340–62. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1627.
Mertokusumo, Sudikno. Penemuan Hukum: Sebuah Pengantar. Yogyakarta: Liberty, 2009.
Nggilu, Novendri M. “Menggagas Sanksi Atas Tindakan Constitution Disobedience Terhadap Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi.” Jurnal Konstitusi 16, no. 1 (March 2019): 43–60. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1613.
Ningrum, Dian Ayu Widya, Al Khanif, and Antikowati. “Format Ideal Tindak Lanjut Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Untuk Mengefektifkan Asas Erga Omnes.” Jurnal Konstitusi 19, no. 2 (June 2022): 334–58. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1924.
Peczenik, Alexander. On Law and Reason. New York: Springer, 2009.
Putri, Intan Permata, and Mohammad Mahrus Ali. “Karakteristik Judicial Order dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Dengan Amar Tidak Dapat Diterima.” Jurnal Konstitusi 16, no. 4 (December 2019): 883–904. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31078/jk16410.
Sa’adah, Nabitatus. “Mahkamah Konstitusi Sebagai Pengawal Demokrasi dan Konstitusi Khususnya dalam Menjalankan Constitutional Review.” Adminitrative Law & Governance Journal 2, no. 2 (June 2019): 235–47. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.14710/alj.v2i2.235-247.
Sacerdoti, Giorgio. “A Comment on Henry Gao, ‘Dictum on Dicta: Obiter Dicta in WTO Disputes.’” World Trade Review 17, no. 3 (2018): 535–40. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474745618000216.
Safaat, Muchamad Ali, Aan Eko Widiarto, and Fajar Laksono Suroso. “Pola Penafsiran Konstitusi dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Periode 2003-2008 dan 2009-2013.” Jurnal Konstitusi 14, no. 2 (June 2017): 234–61. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1421.
Santoso, Adi Purnomo, and Dina Liliyana. “Konstitusionalitas Tanggung Jawab Negara dalam Melindungi Pembela Hak Asasi Manusia.” Populis : Jurnal Sosial Dan Humaniora 6, no. 1 (2021): 61–71. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.47313/pjsh.v6i1.1110.
Satriawan, Iwan, and Tanto Lailam. “Open Legal Policy dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi dan Pembentukan Undang-Undang.” Jurnal Konstitusi 16, no. 3 (September 2019): 642–65. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1636.
Scofield, Robert G. “Goodhart’s Concession: Defending Ratio Decidendi from Logical Positivism and Legal Realism in the First Half of the Twentieth Century.” King’s Law Journal 16, no. 2 (April 2015): 311–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/09615768.2005.11427613.
Silalahi, Wilma. “Pemberlakuan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Pada Saat Tahapan Pemilu Berlangsung.” Jurnal Bawaslu Provinsi Kepulauan Riau 5, no. 1 (June 2023): 13–23. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.55108/jbk.v5i01.
Soeroso, Fajar Laksono. “Aspek Keadilan dalam Sifat Final Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi.” Jurnal Konstitusi 11, no. 1 (March 2014): 64–84.
Stone, Julius. “The Ratio of the Ratio Decidendi.” The Modern Law Review 22, no. 6 (November 1959): 597–620.
Sugiarto, Kantrey, and Heru Drajat Sulistyo. “Dissenting Opinions Hakim Mahkamah Konstitusi Terhadap Pembatalan Peraturan Daerah Kabupaten/Kota oleh Menteri Dalam Negeri Dikaitkan Dengan Pasal 24A Ayat (1) UUD 1945 (Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor:137/PUU-XIII/2015).” Yustisia Merdeka: Jurnal Imiah Hukum 5, no. 2 (September 2019): 100–110. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.33319/yume.v5i2.38.
Sumodiningrat, Aprilian. “Constitutional Disobedience Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi: Kajian Terhadap Perppu Cipta Kerja.” Constitution Journal 2, no. 1 (June 2023): 48–59. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.35719/constitution.v2i1.50.
Tapahing, Berly Geral. “Akibat Hukum Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Terkait Pengujian Undang-Undang Terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar dalam Sistem Pembentukan Peraturan Perundang-Undangan.” Lex Administratum 6, no. 1 (July 2018): 13–20.
Tauda, Gunawan A, Ni’matul Huda, and Andy Omara. “Theoretical Reconstruction of the ’Existence of the Indonesian Corruption Eradication Commission and Its Comparison to Other Anti-Corruption Agencies in Asia.” Padjdjaran Jurnal Ilmu Hukum 10, no. 2 (August 2023): 172–93. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.22304/pjih.v10n2.a2.
Wardaya, Manunggal K. “Perubahan Konstitusi Melalui Putusan MK: Telaah Atas Putusan Nomor 138/PUU-VII/2009.” Jurnal Konstitusi 7, no. 2 (April 2010): 19–45. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31078/jk722.
Yuliandri. “Bisakah Pertimbangan Hakim MK Yang Dissenting Opinion Dijadikan Rujukan Hukum?,” February 2019. https://www.hukumonline.com/klinik/a/bisakah-pertimbangan-hakim-mk-yang-dissenting-opinion-dijadikan-rujukan-hukum-lt5bfcb911a3607/#!
References
Agustine, Viana. “Keberlakuan Yurisprudensi Pada Kewenangan Pengujian Undang-Undang dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi.” Jurnal Konstitusi 15, no. 2 (September 2018): 642–65. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1539.
Arista, Meika. “Kapan Pertimbangan Putusan MK Dikatakan Mengikat dan Tidak Mengikat?,” November 2019. https://www.hukumonline.com/klinik/a/kapan-pertimbangan-putusan-mk-dikatakan-mengikat-dan-tidak-mengikat-lt5c860ff16a550/.
Asy’ari, Syukri, Meyrinda Rahmawaty Hilipito, and Mohammad Mahrus Ali. “Model dan Implementasi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam Pengujian Undang-Undang (Studi Putusan Tahun 2003-2012).” Jurnal Konstitusi 10, no. 4 (December 2013): 675–708. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1046.
Carlin, Ryan E, Mariana Castrellón, Varun Gauri, Isabel Cristina Jaramillo Sierra, and Jeffrey K Staton. “Public Reactions to Noncompliance with Judicial Orders.” American Political Science Review 116, no. 1 (2022): 265–82. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055421000903.
Dahlman, Christian, and Eveline Feteris. “Introduction.” in Legal Argumentation Theory: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives. New York: Springer, 2013.
Domselaar, Iris van. “A Neo-Aristotelian Notion of Reciprocity: About Civic Friendship and (the Troublesome Character of) Right Judicial Decisions.” In Aristotle and The Philosophy of Law: Theory, Practice and Justice. New York: Springer, 2013.
Hakim, Arief Rachman, Yulita Dwi Pratiwi, Syahrir Syahrir, Wahyu Aliansa, and Aisyah Anudya Palupi. “Kekuatan Hukum Pertimbangan Hakim Mahkamah Konstitusi Mengenai Penjabat Kepala Daerah.” Jurnal USM Law Review 6, no. 1 (April 2023): 15–33. https://doi.org/10.26623/julr.v6i1.5853.
Huda, Ni’matul. “Pengujian Perppu oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi.” Jurnal Konstitusi 7, no. 5 (October 2010): 73–91. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31078/jk754.
Hughes, Robert C. “The Ethics of Obeying Judicial Orders in Flawed Societies.” Res Publica 26, no. 4 (June 2020): 559–75. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-020-09471-3.
Laksono, Fajar. “Relasi Antara Mahkamah Konstitusi Dengan Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat dan Presiden Selaku Pembentuk Undang-Undang (Studi Terhadap Dinamika Pelaksanaan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Melalui Legislasi Tahun 2004-2015).” Disertasi, Program Studi Doktor Ilmu Hukum, Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Brawijaya, 2017.
Larenggam, Masni. “Urgensi Obiter Dicta dalam Putusan Hakil Perkara Perdata.” Lex et Societatis 3, no. 10 (November 2015): 94–101.
Lucke, H K. “Ratio Decidendi: Adjudicative Rational and Source of Law.” Bond Law Review 1, no. 1 (1989): 36–51.
Marzuki, Peter Mahmud. Penelitian Hukum. Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Mulia, 2009.
Maulidi, M Agus. “Menyoal Kekuatan Eksekutorial Putusan Final dan Mengikat Mahkamah Konstitusi.” Jurnal Konstitusi 16, no. 2 (June 2019): 340–62. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1627.
Mertokusumo, Sudikno. Penemuan Hukum: Sebuah Pengantar. Yogyakarta: Liberty, 2009.
Nggilu, Novendri M. “Menggagas Sanksi Atas Tindakan Constitution Disobedience Terhadap Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi.” Jurnal Konstitusi 16, no. 1 (March 2019): 43–60. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1613.
Ningrum, Dian Ayu Widya, Al Khanif, and Antikowati. “Format Ideal Tindak Lanjut Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Untuk Mengefektifkan Asas Erga Omnes.” Jurnal Konstitusi 19, no. 2 (June 2022): 334–58. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1924.
Peczenik, Alexander. On Law and Reason. New York: Springer, 2009.
Putri, Intan Permata, and Mohammad Mahrus Ali. “Karakteristik Judicial Order dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Dengan Amar Tidak Dapat Diterima.” Jurnal Konstitusi 16, no. 4 (December 2019): 883–904. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31078/jk16410.
Sa’adah, Nabitatus. “Mahkamah Konstitusi Sebagai Pengawal Demokrasi dan Konstitusi Khususnya dalam Menjalankan Constitutional Review.” Adminitrative Law & Governance Journal 2, no. 2 (June 2019): 235–47. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.14710/alj.v2i2.235-247.
Sacerdoti, Giorgio. “A Comment on Henry Gao, ‘Dictum on Dicta: Obiter Dicta in WTO Disputes.’” World Trade Review 17, no. 3 (2018): 535–40. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474745618000216.
Safaat, Muchamad Ali, Aan Eko Widiarto, and Fajar Laksono Suroso. “Pola Penafsiran Konstitusi dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Periode 2003-2008 dan 2009-2013.” Jurnal Konstitusi 14, no. 2 (June 2017): 234–61. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1421.
Santoso, Adi Purnomo, and Dina Liliyana. “Konstitusionalitas Tanggung Jawab Negara dalam Melindungi Pembela Hak Asasi Manusia.” Populis : Jurnal Sosial Dan Humaniora 6, no. 1 (2021): 61–71. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.47313/pjsh.v6i1.1110.
Satriawan, Iwan, and Tanto Lailam. “Open Legal Policy dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi dan Pembentukan Undang-Undang.” Jurnal Konstitusi 16, no. 3 (September 2019): 642–65. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1636.
Scofield, Robert G. “Goodhart’s Concession: Defending Ratio Decidendi from Logical Positivism and Legal Realism in the First Half of the Twentieth Century.” King’s Law Journal 16, no. 2 (April 2015): 311–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/09615768.2005.11427613.
Silalahi, Wilma. “Pemberlakuan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Pada Saat Tahapan Pemilu Berlangsung.” Jurnal Bawaslu Provinsi Kepulauan Riau 5, no. 1 (June 2023): 13–23. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.55108/jbk.v5i01.
Soeroso, Fajar Laksono. “Aspek Keadilan dalam Sifat Final Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi.” Jurnal Konstitusi 11, no. 1 (March 2014): 64–84.
Stone, Julius. “The Ratio of the Ratio Decidendi.” The Modern Law Review 22, no. 6 (November 1959): 597–620.
Sugiarto, Kantrey, and Heru Drajat Sulistyo. “Dissenting Opinions Hakim Mahkamah Konstitusi Terhadap Pembatalan Peraturan Daerah Kabupaten/Kota oleh Menteri Dalam Negeri Dikaitkan Dengan Pasal 24A Ayat (1) UUD 1945 (Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor:137/PUU-XIII/2015).” Yustisia Merdeka: Jurnal Imiah Hukum 5, no. 2 (September 2019): 100–110. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.33319/yume.v5i2.38.
Sumodiningrat, Aprilian. “Constitutional Disobedience Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi: Kajian Terhadap Perppu Cipta Kerja.” Constitution Journal 2, no. 1 (June 2023): 48–59. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.35719/constitution.v2i1.50.
Tapahing, Berly Geral. “Akibat Hukum Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Terkait Pengujian Undang-Undang Terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar dalam Sistem Pembentukan Peraturan Perundang-Undangan.” Lex Administratum 6, no. 1 (July 2018): 13–20.
Tauda, Gunawan A, Ni’matul Huda, and Andy Omara. “Theoretical Reconstruction of the ’Existence of the Indonesian Corruption Eradication Commission and Its Comparison to Other Anti-Corruption Agencies in Asia.” Padjdjaran Jurnal Ilmu Hukum 10, no. 2 (August 2023): 172–93. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.22304/pjih.v10n2.a2.
Wardaya, Manunggal K. “Perubahan Konstitusi Melalui Putusan MK: Telaah Atas Putusan Nomor 138/PUU-VII/2009.” Jurnal Konstitusi 7, no. 2 (April 2010): 19–45. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31078/jk722.
Yuliandri. “Bisakah Pertimbangan Hakim MK Yang Dissenting Opinion Dijadikan Rujukan Hukum?,” February 2019. https://www.hukumonline.com/klinik/a/bisakah-pertimbangan-hakim-mk-yang-dissenting-opinion-dijadikan-rujukan-hukum-lt5bfcb911a3607/#!