Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
In the past seven years, the striking characteristic of cases filed before the Constitutional Court (MK) has developed into cases at the open legal policy level. In open legal cases, policy amendments should be settled through the formation or improvement of laws by the government. This study aims towards three objectives: (1) to identify the causes of the emergence of open legal cases filed before the Constitutional Court (2) to analyse the types of interpretations by the Constitutional Court in regards to open legal cases (3) to assess the level of public satisfaction relating to the decisions in open legal cases. The present research is a mixed legal study that utilises both primary and secondary data. The results of the study indicate that (1) the increasing number of open legal submissions at the Constitutional Court is caused by precedents where the Constitutional Court's interpretation of laws is considered swifter in obtaining legal certainty than encouraging the formation or amendment of laws through the President and the DPR. (2) In open legal cases, the interpretation of the Constitutional Court is highly dynamic. There is not a single type of interpretation, either judicial activism or judicial restraint, that is often used consistently in examining and deciding cases in the open legal area. (3) The results of this study also found that the Constitutional Court has not always been a populist in its decisions on open legal cases. There is even no correlation between interpretive judicial activism and judicial restraint with the level of public satisfaction towards the open legal cases.
Keywords: Constitutional Court, Judicial Activism, Judicial Restraint, Open Legal Policy.
Abstrak
Dalam tujuh tahun terakhir, karakteristik perkara yang dimohonkan ke Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK) berkembang pada perkara-perkara pada level kebijakan hukum terbuka (open legal policy). Dalam perkara open legal, perubahan kebijakan seharusnya diselesaikan melalui pembentukan atau perbaikan undang-undang oleh pemerintah. Studi ini bertujuan untuk memperoleh tiga hal, yaitu (1) mengidentifikasi penyebab munculnya perkara-perkara open legal yang dimohonkan di MK, (2) menganalisis jenis penafsiran (MK) dalam perkara open legal, (3) tingkat kepuasan publik terhadap putusan dalam perkara open legal. Studi ini merupakan penelitian hukum campuran (mix legal studies) dengan menggunakan data primer dan data sekunder. Hasil studi menunjukan (1) maraknya permohonan open legal di MK disebabkan oleh preseden dimana penafsiran MK terhadap undang-undang dinilai lebih cepat dalam memperoleh kepastian hukum ketimbang mengusulkan pembentukan atau perubahan undang-undang melalui Presiden dan DPR. (2) Dalam perkara open legal, penafsiran MK sangat dinamis. Tidak ada satu jenis penafsiran baik activism maupun restraint yang kerap digunakan secara konsisten dalam memeriksa dan memutus perkara di wilayah open legal. (3) Hasil studi ini juga menemukan bahwa MK tidak selalu populis dalam putusan-putusan perkara open legal. Bahkan tidak terdapat korelasi antara penafsiran activism maupun restraint dengan tingkat kepuasan publik pada perkara open legal.
Kata Kunci: Judicial Activism, Judicial Restraint, Mahkamah Konstitusi, Open Legal Policy.
Keywords
Article Details
Copyright (c) 2024 Idul Rishan
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
Ali, Mahrus. “Mahkamah Konstitusi dan Penafsiran Hukum yang Progresif.” Jurnal Konstitusi 7, no. 1 (May 20, 2016): 067. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk715.
Arjomand, Said Amir, ed. Constitutional Development and Political Reconstruction from Nation Building to New Constitutionalism Volume 14 2007. Procedings Constitutionalism and Political Reconstruction. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
Arthur D. Hellman. “Judicial Activism: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.” Mississippi College Law Review 21, no. 2 (2002): 253–65.
Björn Dressel. The Judicialization of Politics in Asia. New York: Routledge, 2012.
Burhanuddin Muhtadi. “Politik Uang dan New Normal dalam Pemilu Paska-Orde Baru.” Jurnal Antikorupsi INTEGRITAS 05, no. 1 (2019): 55–74.
Butt, Simon. The Constitutional Court and Democracy in Indonesia. Brill | Nijhoff, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004250598.
Dickson, Brice. Judicial Activism in Common Law Supreme Courts. Oxford: Oxford university press, 2007.
Dixon, Rosalind. “In Defense of Responsive Judicial Review.” SSRN Electronic Journal 34, no. 2 (2022): 104–15. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4100843.
Dramanda, Wicaksana. “Menggagas Penerapan Judicial Restraint di Mahkamah Konstitusi.” Jurnal Konstitusi 11, no. 4 (May 20, 2016): 617. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1141.
Faiz, Pan Mohamad. “Dimensi Judicial Activism dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi.” Jurnal Konstitusi 13, no. 2 (January 1, 1970): 406–30. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1328.
Hendrianto, Stefanus. Law and Politics of Constitutional Courts: Indonesia and the Search for Judicial Heroes. First issued in paperback. Comparative Constitutionalism in Muslim Majority States. London New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2020.
Kmiec, Keenan D. “The Origin and Current Meanings of ‘Judicial Activism.’” California Law Review 92, no. 5 (October 2004): 1441. https://doi.org/10.2307/3481421.
Mendes, Conrado Hübner. Constitutional Courts and Deliberative Democracy. Oxford University Press, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199670451.001.0001.
Petersen, Niels. Proportionality and Judicial Activism: Fundamental Rights Adjudication in Canada, Germany and South Africa. 1st ed. Cambridge University Press, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316823330.
Philip A. Talmadge. “Understanding the Limits of Power: Judicial Restraint in General Jurisdiction Court Systems.” Seattle University Law Review 22, no. 2 (1999): 695.
Richard A. Posner. “The Rise and Fall of Judicial Self-Restraint.” California Law Review 100, no. 2 (2012): 519–56.
Rishan, Idul. “Doubting the Impartiality: Constitutional Court Judges and Conflict of Interest.” Jurnal Jurisprudence 12, no. 1 (October 31, 2022): 92–105. https://doi.org/10.23917/jurisprudence.v12i1.1058.
Rishan, Idul, Sri Hastuti Puspitasari, and Siti Ruhama Mardhatillah. “Amendment to Term of Office of Constitutional Court Judges in Indonesia: Reasons, Implications, and Improvement.” Varia Justicia 18, no. 2 (November 29, 2022): 141–55. https://doi.org/10.31603/variajusticia.v18i2.7236.
Riwanto, Agus. “Korelasi Pengaturan Sistem Pemilu Proporsional Terbuka Berbasis Suara Terbanyak dengan Korupsi Politik di Indonesia.” Yustisia Jurnal Hukum 4, no. 1 (April 1, 2015). https://doi.org/10.20961/yustisia.v4i1.8624.
Robert F. Nagel. “Marbury v. Madison and Modern Judicial Review.” Wake Forest Law Review 38, no. 2 (2003): 613–33.
Roux, Theunis. “Constitutional Courts as Democratic Consolidators: Insights from South Africa after 20 Years.” Journal of Southern African Studies 42, no. 1 (January 2, 2016): 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057070.2016.1084770.
———. “Indonesia’s Judicial Review Regime in Comparative Perspective.” Constitutional Review 4, no. 2 (December 31, 2018): 188. https://doi.org/10.31078/consrev422.
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 (November 2, 2017): 234. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1421.
Satriawan, Iwan, and Tanto Lailam. “Open Legal Policy dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Dan Pembentukan Undang-Undang.” Jurnal Konstitusi 16, no. 3 (October 8, 2019): 559. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1636.
Whittington, Keith E. Constitutional Interpretation: Textual Meaning, Original Intent, and Judicial Review. Lawrence, Kan: Univ. Press of Kansas, 1999.
References
Ali, Mahrus. “Mahkamah Konstitusi dan Penafsiran Hukum yang Progresif.” Jurnal Konstitusi 7, no. 1 (May 20, 2016): 067. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk715.
Arjomand, Said Amir, ed. Constitutional Development and Political Reconstruction from Nation Building to New Constitutionalism Volume 14 2007. Procedings Constitutionalism and Political Reconstruction. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
Arthur D. Hellman. “Judicial Activism: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.” Mississippi College Law Review 21, no. 2 (2002): 253–65.
Björn Dressel. The Judicialization of Politics in Asia. New York: Routledge, 2012.
Burhanuddin Muhtadi. “Politik Uang dan New Normal dalam Pemilu Paska-Orde Baru.” Jurnal Antikorupsi INTEGRITAS 05, no. 1 (2019): 55–74.
Butt, Simon. The Constitutional Court and Democracy in Indonesia. Brill | Nijhoff, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004250598.
Dickson, Brice. Judicial Activism in Common Law Supreme Courts. Oxford: Oxford university press, 2007.
Dixon, Rosalind. “In Defense of Responsive Judicial Review.” SSRN Electronic Journal 34, no. 2 (2022): 104–15. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4100843.
Dramanda, Wicaksana. “Menggagas Penerapan Judicial Restraint di Mahkamah Konstitusi.” Jurnal Konstitusi 11, no. 4 (May 20, 2016): 617. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1141.
Faiz, Pan Mohamad. “Dimensi Judicial Activism dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi.” Jurnal Konstitusi 13, no. 2 (January 1, 1970): 406–30. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1328.
Hendrianto, Stefanus. Law and Politics of Constitutional Courts: Indonesia and the Search for Judicial Heroes. First issued in paperback. Comparative Constitutionalism in Muslim Majority States. London New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2020.
Kmiec, Keenan D. “The Origin and Current Meanings of ‘Judicial Activism.’” California Law Review 92, no. 5 (October 2004): 1441. https://doi.org/10.2307/3481421.
Mendes, Conrado Hübner. Constitutional Courts and Deliberative Democracy. Oxford University Press, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199670451.001.0001.
Petersen, Niels. Proportionality and Judicial Activism: Fundamental Rights Adjudication in Canada, Germany and South Africa. 1st ed. Cambridge University Press, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316823330.
Philip A. Talmadge. “Understanding the Limits of Power: Judicial Restraint in General Jurisdiction Court Systems.” Seattle University Law Review 22, no. 2 (1999): 695.
Richard A. Posner. “The Rise and Fall of Judicial Self-Restraint.” California Law Review 100, no. 2 (2012): 519–56.
Rishan, Idul. “Doubting the Impartiality: Constitutional Court Judges and Conflict of Interest.” Jurnal Jurisprudence 12, no. 1 (October 31, 2022): 92–105. https://doi.org/10.23917/jurisprudence.v12i1.1058.
Rishan, Idul, Sri Hastuti Puspitasari, and Siti Ruhama Mardhatillah. “Amendment to Term of Office of Constitutional Court Judges in Indonesia: Reasons, Implications, and Improvement.” Varia Justicia 18, no. 2 (November 29, 2022): 141–55. https://doi.org/10.31603/variajusticia.v18i2.7236.
Riwanto, Agus. “Korelasi Pengaturan Sistem Pemilu Proporsional Terbuka Berbasis Suara Terbanyak dengan Korupsi Politik di Indonesia.” Yustisia Jurnal Hukum 4, no. 1 (April 1, 2015). https://doi.org/10.20961/yustisia.v4i1.8624.
Robert F. Nagel. “Marbury v. Madison and Modern Judicial Review.” Wake Forest Law Review 38, no. 2 (2003): 613–33.
Roux, Theunis. “Constitutional Courts as Democratic Consolidators: Insights from South Africa after 20 Years.” Journal of Southern African Studies 42, no. 1 (January 2, 2016): 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057070.2016.1084770.
———. “Indonesia’s Judicial Review Regime in Comparative Perspective.” Constitutional Review 4, no. 2 (December 31, 2018): 188. https://doi.org/10.31078/consrev422.
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 (November 2, 2017): 234. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1421.
Satriawan, Iwan, and Tanto Lailam. “Open Legal Policy dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Dan Pembentukan Undang-Undang.” Jurnal Konstitusi 16, no. 3 (October 8, 2019): 559. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1636.
Whittington, Keith E. Constitutional Interpretation: Textual Meaning, Original Intent, and Judicial Review. Lawrence, Kan: Univ. Press of Kansas, 1999.