Article Sidebar

Submitted
January 8, 2026
Accepted
July 13, 2026
Published
July 13, 2026
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 0 Download : 0

Main Article Content

Abstract

The discourse on legal policy has entered a new chapter in the judicial review of laws at the Constitutional Court. This new chapter is characterized by the Constitutional Court becoming increasingly open to reviewing open legal policies. Consequently, decisions previously deemed as open legal policies, such as cases concerning the presidential threshold, parliamentary threshold, and several other open legal policy cases, have begun to be granted by the Court. However, the ambiguity of meaning regarding morality, rationality, and intolerable injustice as limitations in the review of open legal policies creates obstacles for subsequent reviews. To that end, the researcher aims to seek the interpretation as well as the criteria of these limitations as the initial boundaries of open legal policy, formulated as: what is the meaning of the limitations of morality, rationality, and intolerable injustice in the review of open legal policy? This study employs a normative juridical research method with a conceptual approach that dissects the concept of limitations on open legal policy and a case approach utilizing Constitutional Court decisions that provide interpretations of the limitations of morality, rationality, and intolerable injustice. The purpose of employing these approaches is to ensure that the interpretation of the limitations of open legal policy holds constitutional value and reflects legal certainty within the concept of the rule of law. The researcher utilizes 16 (sixteen) decisions to discover this interpretation. Through these decisions, it is found that there are 6 (six) metrics of morality, 5 (five) metrics of rationality, and 4 (four) metrics of intolerable injustice commonly used by the Constitutional Court in reviewing open legal policies. These metrics are used to prove the constitutionality of open legal policies in the judicial review of laws

Keywords

Constitutional Limits Morality Rasionality Intolerable Injustice Open Legal Policy

Article Details

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Alendra Nauval Mufti Rayhan, Muchamad Ali Safaat, Elfa Murdiana, Ria Casmi Arssa

Creative Commons License

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.

How to Cite
Rayhan, A. N. M., Safaat, M. A., Murdiana, E., & Arssa, R. C. (2026). Tafsir Konstitusional Batasan Moralitas, Rasionalitas dan Ketidakadilan Yang Intolerable dalam Pengujian Kebijakan Hukum Terbuka. Jurnal Hukum IUS QUIA IUSTUM, 33(2), 269–297. https://doi.org/10.20885/iustum.vol33.iss2.art2
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. Al-Fatih, Sholahuddin. “Interpretation Of Open Legal Policy By The Constitutional Judges In Judicial Review Of Parliamentary Thresholds.” Diponegoro Law Review 6, no. 2 (October 31, 2021): 231–46. https://doi.org/10.14710/dilrev.6.2.2021.231-246.

  2. Andra Triyudiana, and Putri Neneng. “Penerapan Prinsip Keadilan Sebagai Fairness Menurut John Rawls Di Indonesia Sebagai Perwujudan Dari Pancasila.” Das Sollen: Jurnal Kajian Kontemporer Hukum Dan Masyarakat 2, no. 01 SE-Articles (January 12, 2024). https://journal.forikami.com/index.php/dassollen/article/view/528.

  3. Batubara, Rajali. “Peranan Interpretasi Hukum Dalam Praktik Peradilan Di Indonesia.” El-Sirry: Jurnal Hukum Islam Dan Sosial 2, no. 1 (June 21, 2024): 71–92. https://doi.org/10.24952/ejhis.v2i1.11384.

  4. Christian, Angga, Ainun Nabilah, and Sulthoni Ajie. “Teori Keadilan Menurut Jhon Rawls.” Quantum Juris: Jurnal Hukum Modern 7, no. 1 (January 1, 2025). https://journalversa.com/s/index.php/jhm/article/view/865.

  5. Collier, C W. Basic Themes in Law and Jurisprudence. Anderson Publishing Company, 2000. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=--46AQAAIAAJ.

  6. Darmawan, Dwiky Arief, and Andy Usmina Wijaya. “Teori Opened Legal Policy Dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 90/PUU-XXI/2023.” Gorontalo Law Review 7, no. 1 (April 30, 2024): 111. https://doi.org/10.32662/golrev.v7i1.3355.

  7. Fitzsimons, Peter. “The ‘End’ of Kant‐in‐Himself: Nietzschean Difference.” Educational Philosophy and Theory 39, no. 5 (January 9, 2007): 559–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2007.00245.x.

  8. Hart, H L A, and L Green. The Concept of Law. Clarendon Law Series. OUP Oxford, 2012. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=53u8K7jNGioC.

  9. Husni, Sabar Indra, Hedwig Adianto Mau, and Rotua Valentina Sagala. “The Concept of Open Legal Policy in Constitutional Court Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023 on the Age Limit for Candidates for President and Vice President.” POLICY LAW NOTARY AND REGULATORY ISSUES (POLRI) 4, no. 3 (May 17, 2025): 319–37. https://doi.org/10.55047/polri.v4i3.1723.

  10. Isdiyanto, Ilham Yuli. “Max Weber vs Emile Durkheim: Pertarungan Paradigma Dalam Sosiologi Hukum Di Indonesia.” Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan 55, no. 2 (June 2, 2025). https://doi.org/10.21143/jhp.vol55.no.2.1782.

  11. Jimly Asshiddiqie. Konstitusi Dan Konstitusionalisme Indonesia. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2010.

  12. Kant, Immanuel. Dasar-Dasar METAFISIKA MORAL. Edited by Robby Habiba Abror. Yogyakarta: Insight Reference, 2022. https://digilib.uin-suka.ac.id/id/eprint/58018/1/Dasar-dasar Metafisika Moral.pdf.

  13. Kasmawati, Andi. “Konstruksi Hukum Yang Bersumber Dari Realitas Sosial (Suatu Implikasi Terhadap Sosiologikal Jurisprudensi).” Masalah-Masalah Hukum; Vol 40, No 1 (2011): Masalah-Masalah HukumDO - 10.14710/Mmh.40.1.2011.34-38, January 18, 2011. https://ejournal.undip.ac.id/index.php/mmh/article/view/13051.

  14. Kien, Pham Thi. “Universal Moral Law in Kant’s Philosophy: Meaning and Application in the Modern World.” Aufklärung: Journal of Philosophy 11, no. Especial (November 6, 2025): 135–44. https://doi.org/10.18012/arf.v11iEspecial.74599.

  15. Konstitusi, Mahkamah. Hukum Acara Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia. Edited by Fajlurrahman Jurdi. Jakarta: Kepaniteraan dan Sekertariat Jendral Mahkamah Konstitusi, 2019.

  16. ———. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 112/PUU-XX/2022 (2022).

  17. ———. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 22/PUU-XV/2017 (2016).

  18. ———. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 52/PUU-X/2012 (n.d.).

  19. ———. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 53/PUU-XV/2017 (n.d.).

  20. ———. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 55/PUU-XXI/2023 (2023).

  21. ———. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 62/PUU-XXII/2024 (2024).

  22. ———. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 73/PUU-XX/2022 (2022).

  23. ———. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 84/PUU-XXII/2024 (2024).

  24. ———. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023 (2023).

  25. ———. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 93/PUU-XVI/2018 (2018).

  26. ———. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 10/PUU-III/2005 (2005).

  27. ———. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 116/PUU-XXI/2023 (2023).

  28. ———. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 136/PUU-XXII/2024 (2024).

  29. Leiter, Brian. “Nietzsche and the Morality Critics.” Ethics 107, no. 2 (June 28, 1997): 250–85. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2381948.

  30. Lina Sinaulan, Ramlani, Rahmat Saputra, and Sugeng Sugeng. “The Constitutional Court as a Positive Legislative through the Living Constitution Approach.” International Journal of Law and Society 2, no. 4 (October 13, 2025): 70–84. https://doi.org/10.62951/ijls.v2i4.780.

  31. Mahfud MD. Konstitusi Dan Hukum Dalam Kontroversi Isu. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers, 2009.

  32. Mantara Sukma, Gardha Galang. “Open Legal Policy Peraturan Perundang-Undangan Bidang Politik Dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi (Studi Terhadap Putusan MK Bidang Politik Tahun 2015-2017).” Jurnal Lex Renaissance 5, no. 1 (January 1, 2020). https://doi.org/10.20885/JLR.vol5.iss1.art1.

  33. Marzuki, Mahmud. Penelitian Hukum: Edisi Revisi. Revisi. Jakarta: Kencana, 2005. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=CKZADwAAQBAJ&printsec=copyright#v=onepage&q&f=false.

  34. Moch Abdu Sony Ihsanotaki, Andri Ghiffari W, Fadhel Moch F, and Rehan Zaeri. “Ubermensch Dan Kritik Nietzhsche Terhadap Hukum Moral Tradisional.” Praxis: Jurnal Filsafat Terapan 2, no. 01 SE-Articles (June 28, 2025). https://journal.forikami.com/index.php/praxis/article/view/942.

  35. Mufti, Alendra Nauval, Rayhan * Id, Muchammad Ali, Safaat Id, Ria Casmi, and Arrsa Id. “Defining the Boundaries of Morality, Rationality, and Justice in Constitutional Court Review of Open Legal Policy.” Jurnal Kajian Konstitusi 5, no. 2 (December 30, 2025): 220–43. https://doi.org/10.19184/J.KK.V5I2.53687.

  36. Nalle, Victor Imanuel W. “Rasionalitas Komunikatif Sebagai Pembentuk Keberlakuan Evaluatif Kaidah Hukum Dalam Masyarakat Plural.” Universitas Brawijaya, 2009.

  37. Nietzsche Friedrich. The Birth Of Tragedy (Terjemahan). IRCISOD, 2024.

  38. Pahlevi, Farida Sekti. “Pemberantasan Korupsi Di Indonesia Perspektif Legal System Lawrence M. Freidmen.” El-Dusturie 1, no. 1 (June 21, 2022). https://doi.org/10.21154/ELDUSTURIE.V1I1.4097.

  39. Perdana, Muhammad Anugerah, and Mochamad Adli Wafi. “Pemaknaan Mahkamah Konstitusi Terhadap Batasan Open Legal Policy Beserta Kompleksitasnya.” Veritas et Justitia 11, no. 2 (January 4, 2026): 251–70. https://doi.org/10.25123/vej.v11i2.9287.

  40. Prabowo, Romi Galih, and Wahyu Donri Tinambunan. “Constitutional Implications of KPK Leadership Term Changes: Analysis of MK Decision No. 112/PUU-XX/2022 and Ruling Inconsistencies.” Jurnal Hukum Volkgeist 8, no. 1 (December 29, 2023): 108–16. https://doi.org/10.35326/volkgeist.v8i1.4652.

  41. Prescott-Couch, Alexander. “Nietzsche and the Significance of Genealogy.” Mind 133, no. 531 (July 23, 2024): 623–50. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzae008.

  42. Qamar, Nurul, and Farah Syah Rezah. “Wewenang Sebagai Instrumen Penyelenggararaan Pemerintahan Dalam Sistem Negara Hukum.” Asas Wa Tandhim: Jurnal Hukum, Pendidikan Dan Sosial Keagamaan 2, no. 2 (July 14, 2023): 201–22. https://doi.org/10.47200/awtjhpsa.v2i2.1781.

  43. Rahardjo, S. Hukum Progresif: Sebuah Sintesa Hukum Indonesia. Yogyakarta: Genta Pub., 2009. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=QQTicQAACAAJ.

  44. Rawls, John. A THEORY OF JUSTICE. Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press Cambridge, 1999.

  45. Ridwan, Ridwan. “Relasi Hukum Dan Moral Perspektif Imperative Categories.” Fundamental: Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum 10, no. 1 (April 8, 2021): 18–32. https://doi.org/10.34304/JF.V10I1.32.

  46. Saragih, Geofani Milthree, Mirza Nasution, and Eka NAM Sihombing. “Judicial Review Oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi: Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint Dalam Perspektif Kebebasan Kehakiman.” Jurnal Konstitusi 22, no. 1 (March 1, 2025): 039–065. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk2213.

  47. 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.

  48. Soerjono Soekanto, and Sri Mamudji. Penelitian Hukum Normatif: Suatu Tinjauan Singkat. Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada, 2010. https://books.google.co.id/books/about/Penelitian_hukum_normatif.html?hl=id&id=_Y1GPAAACAAJ&redir_esc=y.

  49. Sudikno Mertokusumo. Penemuan Hukum : Sebuah Pengantar. Yogyakarta: Universitas Atma Jaya Yogyakart, 2010.

  50. Sukananda, Satria. “Pendekatan Teori Hukum Refleksif Dalam Menjawab Permasalahan Keterbatasan Pengawasan Terhadap Pelaksanaan Tanggung Jawab Sosial Perusahaan Di Indonesia.” Law and Justice 3, no. 1 (November 2, 2018): 12–21. https://doi.org/10.23917/laj.v3i1.6086.

  51. Sukma, Eko Nur, Zaini Cholis, Masrial Masrial, and Parningotan Malau. “Paradigma Di Bidang Politik Dan Hukum.” Cessie : Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum 5, no. 1 (May 6, 2026). https://doi.org/10.55904/1XVN1P95.

  52. SUPRYADI, ADY, AESTHETICA FIORINIMANTIKA, RENA AMINWARA, FAHRURROZI FAHRURROZI, and IMAWANTO IMAWANTO. “Penafsiran Konstitusi Terhadap Putusan Nomor 116/PUU-XXI/2023 Tentang Ambang Batas Parlemen.” GANEC SWARA 18, no. 1 (March 9, 2024): 592. https://doi.org/10.35327/gara.v18i1.800.

  53. Syahrin, Muhammad Alvi. “The Principle of Non-Refoulement as Jus Cogens: History, Application, and Exception in International Refugee Law.” Journal of Indonesian Legal Studies 6, no. 1 (May 31, 2021): 53–82. https://doi.org/10.15294/jils.v6i1.43350.

  54. Wibowo, Mardian. Kebijakan Hukum Terbuka Dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi: Konsep Dan Kajian Dalam Pembatasan Kebebasan Pembentuk Undang-Undang. Depok: Rajawali Pers, Divisi Buku Perguruan Tinggi, PT Rajagrafindo Persada, 2019.

  55. Wibowo, Mardian, I Nyoman Nurjaya, and Muchammad Ali Safaat. “The Criticism on the Meaning of ‘Open Legal Policy’ in Verdicts of Judicial Review at the Constitutional Court Mardian Wibowo.” Constitutional Review 3, no. 2 (August 21, 2018): 262–86. https://doi.org/10.31078/consrev326.

  56. Widiarty, Wiwik Sri. Buku Ajar Metode Penelitian Hukum. Edited by Muhammad Tajuddin. Yogyakarta: Publika Global Media, 2024.

  57. Zahirah Nadiatus Salsabila, Shalsabila Yuniar Iswara, and M. Zaini Abdul Ghoni. “Imparsialitas Hakim Mahkamah Konstitusi Dalam Negara Demokrasi.” Sosio Yustisia: Jurnal Hukum Dan Perubahan Sosial 4, no. 2 (November 30, 2024): 254–72. https://doi.org/10.15642/sosyus.v4i2.634.