Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Election regulations became rules that are most frequently changed through legislation or judiciary adjudication. These changes are sometimes made when the election stages have begun, which can cause polemics both in terms of election technicalities and in terms of the substance of election rules. In facing this, the application of the Purcell Principle by the Constitutional Court is considered to be a solution. However, the question is, this principle comes from a country with a different legal culture and election system from Indonesia. This study is here to examine the relevance of the Purcell Principle to the Indonesian general election system and to examine the consistency of the Constitutional Court's practice in applying this principle. This research is a normative legal research with a literature study. The approaches used are the case approach and the conceptual approach. The data and legal materials obtained will be analyzed qualitatively. The results of the study show that the Purcell Principle in the election system in Indonesia has urgency both technically and non-technically. To be relevant, this principle must become a legal culture that is carried out and applied by the Constitutional Court, starting from consistency and making several technical adjustments related to the time of application of this principle. Finally, in the practice of Constitutional Court Decision No. 102/PUU-VII/2009, Constitutional Court Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023, and Constitutional Court Decision No. 116/PUU-XXI/2023 which is a test related to election law regulations shows that there have been differences and inconsistencies in the application of the Purcell Principle in Indonesia by the Constitutional Court.
Keywords: Constitutional Court, Election, Purcell Principle
Abstrak
Regulasi pemilu merupakan aturan yang paling sering berubah baik melalui legislasi maupun ajudikasi oleh lembaga peradilan. Perubahan itu terkadang dilakukan ketika tahapan pemilu telah dimulai sehingga dapat menimbulkan polemik baik dari segi teknis pemilu maupun dari segi substansi aturan pemilu. Menghadapi itu, penerapan Prinsip Purcell oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi dinilai dapat menjadi solusi. Namun yang menjadi pertanyaan, prinsip tersebut hadir dari negara dengan budaya hukum dan sistem pemilu yang berbeda dengan Indonesia. Penelitian ini hadir untuk mengkaji relevansi Prinsip Purcell terhadap sistem pemilihan umum Indonesia serta mengkaji konsistensi praktik Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam penerapan prinsip tersebut. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum normatif dengan studi kepustakaan. Pendekatan yang digunakan adalah pendekatan kasus dan pendekatan konseptual. Adapun data dan bahan hukum yang diperoleh akan dianalisa secara kualitatif. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa Prinsip Purcell dalam sistem pemilu di Indonesia memiliki urgensitas baik secara teknis maupun non teknis. Agar relevan, prinsip tersebut harus menjadi budaya hukum yang dilakukan dan diterapkan oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi yang dimulai dari konsistensi dan dilakukan beberapa penyesuaian teknis terkait waktu penerapan prinsip tersebut. Terakhir, pada praktik Putusan MK No. 102/PUU-VII/2009, Putusan MK No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023, dan Putusan MK No. 116/PUU-XXI/2023 yang merupakan pengujian terkait aturan hukum pemilu menunjukkan bahwa telah terjadi perbedaan dan inkonsistensi penerapan Prinsip Purcell di Indonesia olah Mahkamah Konstitusi.
Kata Kunci: Mahkamah Konstitusi, Pemilu, Prinsip Purcell
Keywords
Article Details
Copyright (c) 2025 Azmi Fathu Rohman, Naufal Rizqiyanto, Muhammad RM Fayasy Failaq
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.
c. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
References
Abadi, M. Husnu, Wira Atma Hajri, dan Muslikhah Umi. “Implikasi Atas Perubahan Sikap Mahkamah Konstitusi Terhadap Pengujian Undang-Undang yang Merupakan Kebijakan Hukum Terbuka , Melalui Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No . 116 / PUU-XXI / 2023.” Journal of Mandalika 3, no. 1 (2024): 194–97.
Aditya, Zaka Firma. “Judicial Consistency dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi tentang Pengujian Undang-Undang Penodaan Agama.” Jurnal Konstitusi 17, no. 1 (2020): 83.
Aidul Fitriciada Azhari. “Etika dan Budaya Hukum dalam Peradilan,” 2017, 315.
Arizona, Yance. “Legal Policy of President Joko Widodo and the Independence of Constitutional Court.” Jurnal Konstitusi 21, no. 1 (2024): 35–61. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk2113.
Baidhowah, Adfin Rochmad. “Defender of Democracy: The Role of Indonesian Constitutional Court in Preventing Rapid Democratic Backsliding.” Constitutional Review Vol 7 (2021): 125.
Departemen Hukum Tata Negara, Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Gadjah Mada. “Skandal Mahkamah Keluarga: Eksaminasi Publik Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 90/PUU-XXI/2023 Mengenai Batas Usia Calon Presiden & Wakil Presiden.,” 2023.
Dian Agung Wicaksono. “Peluang Penerapan Purcell Principle sebagai Judicial Restraint Bagi Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam Pengujian Undang-Undang pada Tahapan Pemilihan Umum.” Prosiding Seminar Hukum Aktual (PSHA) 2, no. 5 (2024).
Foran, Michael. “The Cornerstone Of Our Law: Equality, Consistency And Judicial Review.” Cambridge Law Journal 81, no. 2 (2022): 251–52.
Gao, Ruoyun. “Why Purcell Principle Should Be Abolished.” Duke Law Journal 71 (2022): 1140.
Gilleran, Samuel D. “Comment, Purcell v. Gonzales, Principle and Problem—Native American Voting Rights in the 2018 North Dakota Elections.” WAKE FOREST L. 445 (2020): 449–54.
Hantoro, Bimo Fajar. “Originalisme dan Syarat Keserentakan Pemilu dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi.” Undang: Jurnal Hukm 6, no. 1 (2023). https://doi.org/10.22437/ujh.6.1.33-64.
Hasen, Richard L. “Florida State University Law Review Reining in the Purcell Principle” 43, no. 2 (2017): 441.
Hastuti, Proborini. “Shifting the Character of the Constitutional Court Decision Influenced by Political Constellation in Indonesia.” Constitutional Review 5, no. 2 (2019): 339. https://doi.org/10.31078/consrev526.
Houston, Rachael. “DOES ANYBODY REALLY KNOW WHAT TIME IT IS?: HOW THE US SUPREME COURT DEFINES ‘TIME’ USING THE PURCELL PRINCIPLE” 441 (2016): 769–808.
Iii, W Ilfred U C Odrington. “PURCELL IN PANDEMIC,” 2021, 941–84.
Landaut, David, dan Rosalind Dixon. “Abusive Judicial Review: Courts against Democracy.” Abusive Judicial Review: Courts against Democracy 53, no. 3 (2020): 1313–88.
“Legal Transplant and the Model of Constitutional Court Decision Pencangkokan Hukum Asing dalam Model Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi A . Introduction Laws , including constitutional law , do not exist in an isolated space . 1 The constitutional law derived it.” Bisariyadi 5, no. 6 (2018): 1–23.
Luca Anderlini, Dkk. “Legal Efficiency and Consistency.” European Economic Review 2019 (t.t.): 19.
Marzuki, Peter Mahmud. Penelitian Hukum. Cetakan-17. Jakarta: Kencana, 2022.
Mas’udah, Al. “The Presidential Threshold As An Open Legal Policy In General Elections In Indonesia.” Prophetic Law Review 2 (2020): 37–54.
MD, Moh. Mahfud. Politik Hukum di Indonesia. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers, 2009.
Muda, Iskandar. “Interpretasi Mahkamah Konstitusi Terkait Uji Konstitusional Pasal 66 Undang-Undang Jabatan Notaris.” Jurnal Yudisial 13, no. 3 (2021): 274. https://doi.org/10.29123/jy.v13i3.440.
———. “Tidak Dinamis Namun Terjadi Dinamika Dalam Hal Uji Konstitusional Norma Zina.” Jurnal Yudisial 11, no. 3 (2018): 297. https://doi.org/10.29123/jy.v11i3.316.
Muhammad Hanif Mahsabihul Ardhi dan Wahyu Priyanka Nata Permana. “Konstitusionalitas Pengaturan Usia Calon Presiden ndan Wakil Presiden.” Lex Renaissance 9, no. 28 (2024).
Mukti, Fajar, dan Achmad Yulianto. Dualisme Penelitian Hukum Normatif Dan Empiris. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar, 2010.
Orentlicher, David. “Conflict of Interest and Contitution.” Washington and Lee Law Review. 59, no. 3 (2002): 717–18.
oyez.org. “’ ‘Purcell vs Gonzales,’” t.t. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2006/06-532.
Prabowo, Bagus Surya. “Menggagas Judicial Activism dalam Putusan Presidential Threshold di Mahkamah Konstitusi.” Jurnal Konstitusi 19, no. 1 (2022): 80–81. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1914.
Ramadhan, Choky R. “Konvergensi Civil Law dan Common Law di Indonesia dalam Penemuan dan Pembentukan Hukum.” Mimbar Hukum 30, no. 2 (2018): 214.
Silalahi, Wilma, Jl Letjen, S Parman No, Jakarta Barat, dan D K I Jakarta. “MODEL PEMILIHAN SERENTAK DAN PERANAN KOMISI PEMILIHAN UMUM PADA PEMILIHAN SERENTAK TAHUN 2024 THE SIMULTANEOUS ELECTION MODEL AND THE ROLE OF THE GENERAL ELECTION COMMISSION IN 2024,” 2024, 65–79.
Sunarto, dan Eta Yuni Lestari. “JUDICIAL REVIEW SEBAGAI MEKANISME KONTROL TERHADAP PERATURAN PERUNDAN-UNDANGAN.” Integralistik 35, no. 1 (2024): 65.
Tama, Berlian Widya, dan Deka Oktaviana. “Quo Vadis Pengangkatan Guntur Hamzah Sebagai Hakim Mahkamah Konstitusi Ditinjau Dari Aspek Konstitusionalitas.” Constitution Journal 2, no. 2 (2023): 43–56. https://doi.org/10.35719/constitution.v2i2.53.
Ulum, Hafizatul, dan Sukarno. “Analisis Pengaruh Pelanggaran Kode Etik Hakim Mahkamah Konstitusi Terhadap Putusan Yang Di Tetapkan.” Unizar Law Review 6, no. 2 (2023). https://doi.org/10.36679/ulr.v6i2.60.
Watson, Danika Elizabeth. “Free and Fair: Judicial Intervention in Elections Beyond the Purcell Principle and Anderson-Burdick Balancing.” Fordham Law Review 90, no. 2 (2021): 991–1027.
Wicaksono, Dian Agung. “Kembali Bersandar pada MK?” kompas.id, t.t. https://www.kompas.id/baca/opini/2023/11/09/kembali-bersandar-pada-mk.
Yance Arizona, Umar Mubdi, Arbi Mahmuda Harahap. “Analisis Kecenderungan 20 Tahun Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi (2003-2023),” t.t.
Yuav Dotan. “Making Consistenct Consistent.” Administrative Law Review 57, no. 4 (2005): 999.
References
Abadi, M. Husnu, Wira Atma Hajri, dan Muslikhah Umi. “Implikasi Atas Perubahan Sikap Mahkamah Konstitusi Terhadap Pengujian Undang-Undang yang Merupakan Kebijakan Hukum Terbuka , Melalui Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No . 116 / PUU-XXI / 2023.” Journal of Mandalika 3, no. 1 (2024): 194–97.
Aditya, Zaka Firma. “Judicial Consistency dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi tentang Pengujian Undang-Undang Penodaan Agama.” Jurnal Konstitusi 17, no. 1 (2020): 83.
Aidul Fitriciada Azhari. “Etika dan Budaya Hukum dalam Peradilan,” 2017, 315.
Arizona, Yance. “Legal Policy of President Joko Widodo and the Independence of Constitutional Court.” Jurnal Konstitusi 21, no. 1 (2024): 35–61. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk2113.
Baidhowah, Adfin Rochmad. “Defender of Democracy: The Role of Indonesian Constitutional Court in Preventing Rapid Democratic Backsliding.” Constitutional Review Vol 7 (2021): 125.
Departemen Hukum Tata Negara, Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Gadjah Mada. “Skandal Mahkamah Keluarga: Eksaminasi Publik Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 90/PUU-XXI/2023 Mengenai Batas Usia Calon Presiden & Wakil Presiden.,” 2023.
Dian Agung Wicaksono. “Peluang Penerapan Purcell Principle sebagai Judicial Restraint Bagi Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam Pengujian Undang-Undang pada Tahapan Pemilihan Umum.” Prosiding Seminar Hukum Aktual (PSHA) 2, no. 5 (2024).
Foran, Michael. “The Cornerstone Of Our Law: Equality, Consistency And Judicial Review.” Cambridge Law Journal 81, no. 2 (2022): 251–52.
Gao, Ruoyun. “Why Purcell Principle Should Be Abolished.” Duke Law Journal 71 (2022): 1140.
Gilleran, Samuel D. “Comment, Purcell v. Gonzales, Principle and Problem—Native American Voting Rights in the 2018 North Dakota Elections.” WAKE FOREST L. 445 (2020): 449–54.
Hantoro, Bimo Fajar. “Originalisme dan Syarat Keserentakan Pemilu dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi.” Undang: Jurnal Hukm 6, no. 1 (2023). https://doi.org/10.22437/ujh.6.1.33-64.
Hasen, Richard L. “Florida State University Law Review Reining in the Purcell Principle” 43, no. 2 (2017): 441.
Hastuti, Proborini. “Shifting the Character of the Constitutional Court Decision Influenced by Political Constellation in Indonesia.” Constitutional Review 5, no. 2 (2019): 339. https://doi.org/10.31078/consrev526.
Houston, Rachael. “DOES ANYBODY REALLY KNOW WHAT TIME IT IS?: HOW THE US SUPREME COURT DEFINES ‘TIME’ USING THE PURCELL PRINCIPLE” 441 (2016): 769–808.
Iii, W Ilfred U C Odrington. “PURCELL IN PANDEMIC,” 2021, 941–84.
Landaut, David, dan Rosalind Dixon. “Abusive Judicial Review: Courts against Democracy.” Abusive Judicial Review: Courts against Democracy 53, no. 3 (2020): 1313–88.
“Legal Transplant and the Model of Constitutional Court Decision Pencangkokan Hukum Asing dalam Model Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi A . Introduction Laws , including constitutional law , do not exist in an isolated space . 1 The constitutional law derived it.” Bisariyadi 5, no. 6 (2018): 1–23.
Luca Anderlini, Dkk. “Legal Efficiency and Consistency.” European Economic Review 2019 (t.t.): 19.
Marzuki, Peter Mahmud. Penelitian Hukum. Cetakan-17. Jakarta: Kencana, 2022.
Mas’udah, Al. “The Presidential Threshold As An Open Legal Policy In General Elections In Indonesia.” Prophetic Law Review 2 (2020): 37–54.
MD, Moh. Mahfud. Politik Hukum di Indonesia. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers, 2009.
Muda, Iskandar. “Interpretasi Mahkamah Konstitusi Terkait Uji Konstitusional Pasal 66 Undang-Undang Jabatan Notaris.” Jurnal Yudisial 13, no. 3 (2021): 274. https://doi.org/10.29123/jy.v13i3.440.
———. “Tidak Dinamis Namun Terjadi Dinamika Dalam Hal Uji Konstitusional Norma Zina.” Jurnal Yudisial 11, no. 3 (2018): 297. https://doi.org/10.29123/jy.v11i3.316.
Muhammad Hanif Mahsabihul Ardhi dan Wahyu Priyanka Nata Permana. “Konstitusionalitas Pengaturan Usia Calon Presiden ndan Wakil Presiden.” Lex Renaissance 9, no. 28 (2024).
Mukti, Fajar, dan Achmad Yulianto. Dualisme Penelitian Hukum Normatif Dan Empiris. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar, 2010.
Orentlicher, David. “Conflict of Interest and Contitution.” Washington and Lee Law Review. 59, no. 3 (2002): 717–18.
oyez.org. “’ ‘Purcell vs Gonzales,’” t.t. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2006/06-532.
Prabowo, Bagus Surya. “Menggagas Judicial Activism dalam Putusan Presidential Threshold di Mahkamah Konstitusi.” Jurnal Konstitusi 19, no. 1 (2022): 80–81. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1914.
Ramadhan, Choky R. “Konvergensi Civil Law dan Common Law di Indonesia dalam Penemuan dan Pembentukan Hukum.” Mimbar Hukum 30, no. 2 (2018): 214.
Silalahi, Wilma, Jl Letjen, S Parman No, Jakarta Barat, dan D K I Jakarta. “MODEL PEMILIHAN SERENTAK DAN PERANAN KOMISI PEMILIHAN UMUM PADA PEMILIHAN SERENTAK TAHUN 2024 THE SIMULTANEOUS ELECTION MODEL AND THE ROLE OF THE GENERAL ELECTION COMMISSION IN 2024,” 2024, 65–79.
Sunarto, dan Eta Yuni Lestari. “JUDICIAL REVIEW SEBAGAI MEKANISME KONTROL TERHADAP PERATURAN PERUNDAN-UNDANGAN.” Integralistik 35, no. 1 (2024): 65.
Tama, Berlian Widya, dan Deka Oktaviana. “Quo Vadis Pengangkatan Guntur Hamzah Sebagai Hakim Mahkamah Konstitusi Ditinjau Dari Aspek Konstitusionalitas.” Constitution Journal 2, no. 2 (2023): 43–56. https://doi.org/10.35719/constitution.v2i2.53.
Ulum, Hafizatul, dan Sukarno. “Analisis Pengaruh Pelanggaran Kode Etik Hakim Mahkamah Konstitusi Terhadap Putusan Yang Di Tetapkan.” Unizar Law Review 6, no. 2 (2023). https://doi.org/10.36679/ulr.v6i2.60.
Watson, Danika Elizabeth. “Free and Fair: Judicial Intervention in Elections Beyond the Purcell Principle and Anderson-Burdick Balancing.” Fordham Law Review 90, no. 2 (2021): 991–1027.
Wicaksono, Dian Agung. “Kembali Bersandar pada MK?” kompas.id, t.t. https://www.kompas.id/baca/opini/2023/11/09/kembali-bersandar-pada-mk.
Yance Arizona, Umar Mubdi, Arbi Mahmuda Harahap. “Analisis Kecenderungan 20 Tahun Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi (2003-2023),” t.t.
Yuav Dotan. “Making Consistenct Consistent.” Administrative Law Review 57, no. 4 (2005): 999.