Bilah Samping Artikel

Telah diserahkan
November 15, 2024
Diterima
June 23, 2025
Diterbitkan
June 30, 2025
Unduh
PDF (English)
Statistik
Baca Penghitung : 683 Unduh : 1184

Isi Artikel Utama

Abstrak

Indonesia is currently experiencing a democratic regression, marked by increasing political corruption, restrictions on press freedom, and the weakening of independent institutions, including the Constitutional Court. As an institution tasked with safeguarding the Constitution, the Court is ideally expected to function as a negative legislature—annulling unconstitutional legal norms without creating new ones. However, in recent years, the Court has increasingly acted as a positive legislature by formulating new norms to fill legal gaps. While this move aims to protect citizens' constitutional rights, the absence of clear regulations regarding the scope of the Court’s authority as a positive legislature has led to legal uncertainty and opened the door to potential abuse of power. This study uses normative legal research with a doctrinal approach to analyze the impact of democratic regression on the credibility and effectiveness of the Constitutional Court in fulfilling its role as a positive legislature. The findings indicate that without clear regulatory boundaries, the Court's role risks reinforcing elite political hegemony, disrupting the separation of powers, and undermining public trust in its independence. Therefore, it is recommended that the government and the House of Representatives establish explicit regulations on the Court's authority in exercising its positive legislative function. Additionally, a stricter oversight mechanism is necessary to ensure that the Constitutional Court remains independent and consistent in upholding the rule of law and constitutional democracy in Indonesia.

Kata Kunci

Constitutional Court positive legislature democratic regression substantive justice separation of powers

Rincian Artikel

Lisensi

Hak Cipta (c) 2025 Raihan Muhammad

Creative Commons License

Artikel ini berlisensiCreative 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).
Cara Mengutip
Muhammad, R. (2025). Peranan dan Problematika Mahkamah Konstitusi sebagai Positive Legislature di Tengah Regresi Demokrasi Indonesia. Lex Renaissance, 10(1), 65–93. https://doi.org/10.20885/JLR.vol10.iss1.art3
Unduh Sitasi
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Referensi

  1. Agritama Madjid, Mario SW, Muhammad RM Fayasy Failaq, Vina Rohmatul Ummah, and Ade Yulfianto. “Kapabilitas Politik Hukum Undang-Undang Cipta Kerja dan Urgensi Pembentukan Badan Pusat Legislasi Nasional.” Lex Renaissance 8, no. 2 (December 1, 2023): 189–213. https://doi.org/10.20885/JLR.VOL8.ISS2.ART1.

  2. Ahmad, Ahmad, Fence M. Wantu, and Dian Ekawaty Ismail. “Convergence of Constitutional Interpretation to the Test of Laws Through a Constitutional Dialogue Approach: Konvergensi Penafsiran Konstitusional Terhadap Pengujian Undang-Undang Melalui Pendekatan Constitutional Dialogue.” Jurnal Konstitusi 20, no. 3 (September 1, 2023): 514–35. https://doi.org/10.31078/JK2038.

  3. Asfinawati. Peta Bahaya Kriminalisasi Jurnalis Menggunakan UU ITE dan KUHP (Policy Brief Advokasi UU ITE dan KUHP). Jakarta: Aliansi Jurnalis Independen, 2024.

  4. Buana, Mirza Satria. “Legal-Political Paradigm of Indonesian Constitutional Court: Defending a Principled Instrumentalist Court.” Constitutional Review 6, no. 1 (May 2, 2020): 36–66. https://doi.org/10.31078/CONSREV612.

  5. Chand, Hari. Modern Jurisprudence. Petaling Jaya: International law Book services, 2005.

  6. Crijns, J.H. (Jan), and A. (Ton) de Lange. “Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied.” Boom Strafblad 2, no. 3 (July 2, 2021): 77–78. https://doi.org/10.5553/BSB/266669012021002003001.

  7. Darwis, Muhammad, “Review Of Indonesian Constitutional Court Decision Number 21-22/PUU-V/2007 Based On The Inclusive Legal Theory”, Prophetic Law Review, 1(1), (2022), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.20885/PLR.vol1.iss1.art2

  8. Dodsworth, Harry B. “The Positive and Negative Purcell Principle.” Utah Law Review 2022, no. 5 (November 1, 2022). https://doi.org/10.26054/0d-9nqp-9t93.

  9. Dworkin, Ronald. Law’s Empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986.

  10. Economist Intelligence Unit. Democracy Index 2021: The China Challenge. Economist Intelligence Unit, 2022.

  11. ———. Democracy Index 2023: Age of Conflict. Economist Intelligence Unit, 2024.

  12. Efendi, Muhammad Alief Farezi, Muhtadi, and Ahmad Saleh. “Positive Legislature Decisions by the Constitutional Court: Putusan Positive Legislature Oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi.” Jurnal Konstitusi 20, no. 4 (December 1, 2023): 622–39. https://doi.org/10.31078/JK2044.

  13. ELSAM. “Pemidanaan Daniel Tangkilisan, Bentuk Kriminalisasi Terhadap Ekspresi Yang Sah.” ELSAM, 2024. https://www.elsam.or.id/siaran-pers/pemidanaan-daniel-tangkilisan--bentuk-kriminalisasi-terhadap-ekspresi-yang-sah-.

  14. Faiz, Pan Mohamad. “Dimensi Judicial Activism dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi.” Jurnal Konstitusi 13, no. 2 (January 1, 2016): 406–30. https://doi.org/10.31078/JK1328.

  15. Fatwa, Indra. “Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi yang Bersifat Mengatur (Positive Legislature) dalam Upaya Menghadirkan Keadilan Substantif.” JOURNAL EQUITABLE 5, no. 2 (April 30, 2020): 95–120. https://doi.org/10.37859/JEQ.V5I2.2480.

  16. 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 (January 15, 2019). https://doi.org/10.24002/JEP.V35I2.2501.

  17. Freedom House. “Indonesia: Freedom in the World 2023 Country Report,” 2023. https://freedomhouse.org/country/indonesia/freedom-world/2023.

  18. Gasma, Misbahuddin, Abdul Hamid, and Ali Rahman. “Substantive Justice in Regional Election Dispute Resolution: Analyzing the Constitutional Court’s Approach and Challenges in Indonesia.” Pakistan Journal of Life and Social Sciences 23, no. 1 (2025): 3880–88. https://doi.org/10.57239/PJLSS-2025-23.1.00306.

  19. Ghafur, Jamaludin. “Pengaturan Desain Ideal Seleksi Calon Hakim Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik.” Jurnal Majelis Media Aspirasi Konstitusi, 2018, 43.

  20. Ghafur, Jamaludin, Ariyanto, Muslim, Najamuddin Gani, Jayanti Puspitaningrum, and Moh. Amin Hamid. “Peran Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam Mewujudkan Amandemen UUD 1945 Yang Berkualitas.” Syntax Literate: Jurnal Ilmiah Indonesia 9, no. 2 (2024).

  21. Gusman, Delfina. “Konstitusionalitas Pelaksanaan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi: Studi Terhadap Pelaksanaan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 91/Puu-Xviii/2020.” Jurnal Surya Kencana Dua : Dinamika Masalah Hukum Dan Keadilan 10, no. 1 (July 21, 2023): 21–36. https://doi.org/10.32493/SKD.V10I1.Y2023.32252.

  22. Hakim, Arief Rachman, and Yulita Dwi Pratiwi. “Positive Legislature dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Mengenai Upaya Hukum Putusan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang.” Jurnal Konstitusi 19, no. 4 (December 1, 2022): 933–56. https://doi.org/10.31078/JK1949.

  23. Harisudin, M. Noor, and Fika Alfiella. “KEWENANGAN POSITIVE LEGISLATURE MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI DALAM PENGUJIAN UNDANG-UNDANG TERHADAP UNDANG-UNDANG DASAR 1945.” Constitution Journal 1, no. 1 (June 30, 2022): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.35719/CONSTITUTION.V1I1.4.

  24. Harman, Benny K. Konfigurasi Politik dan Kekuasaan Kehakiman di Indonesia. Jakarta: ELSAM, 1997.

  25. Huda, Ni’matul, Dodik Setiawan Nur Heriyanto, and Allan Fatchan Gani Wardhana, ‘The Urgency of the Constitutional Preview of Law on the Ratification of International Treaty by the Constitutional Court in Indonesia’, Heliyon, 7.9 (2021), e07886 <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07886>

  26. Huda, Ni’matul, and R. Nazriyah. Teori dan Pengujian Peraturan Perundang-Undangan. Bantul: Nusamedia, 2019.

  27. IJRS. “Catatan IJRS Terhadap Pemilihan Umum dan Pentingnya Kepastian Hukum,” August 23, 2024. https://ijrs.or.id/2024/08/23/catatan-ijrs-terhadap-pemilihan-umum-dan-pentingnya-kepastian-hukum/.

  28. Kelsen, Hans. General Theory of Law and State. New Jersey: The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., 2009.

  29. KontraS. Lembar Fakta Kriminalisasi Terhadap Fatia-Haris. Jakarta: KontraS, 2021.

  30. Landau, David. “Abusive Constitutionalism.” U.C. Davis Law Review 47, no. 1 (November 1, 2013).

  31. Lestari, Endriyani, Fitria Damayanti, and Uche Nnawulezi. “Progressive Law Dialectics: Statesmen’s Role as Constitution Guardians and the Independence of Indonesia’s Constitutional Court.” The Digest: Journal of Jurisprudence and Legisprudence 5, no. 2 (December 31, 2024): 207–30. https://doi.org/10.15294/digest.v5i2.19043.

  32. Mahar, M Ikhsan. “Pemerintah dan DPR Harus Segera Tindaklanjuti Putusan MK.” Kompas.id, January 29, 2020. https://www.kompas.id/baca/polhuk/2020/01/29/pemerintah-dan-dpr-harus-segera-tindaklanjuti-putusan-mk.

  33. Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia. Putusan Nomor 48/PUU-IX/2011 tentang Pengujian Undang-Undang Nomor 35 Tahun 2009 Tentang Narkotika dan Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 2011 tentang Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 24 Tahun 2003 tentang Mahkamah terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945 (2011).

  34. ———. “UU MK Digugat Usai Putusan Ketentuan Syarat Usia Capres-Cawapres,” December 6, 2023. https://www.mkri.id/index.php?page=web.Berita&id=19840&menu=2.

  35. Martitah. Mahkamah Konstitusi: Dari Negative Legislature ke Positive Legislature? Revisi. Jakarta: Penerbit Konpress, 2023.

  36. ———. “PROGRESIVITAS HAKIM KONSTITUSI DALAM MEMBUAT PUTUSAN (Analisis Terhadap Keberadaan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Yang Bersifat Positive Legislature).” Masalah-Masalah Hukum 41, no. 2 (April 24, 2012): 315–25. https://doi.org/10.14710/MMH.41.2.2012.315-325.

  37. Marzuki, Mahmud. Penelitian Hukum: Edisi Revisi. Jakarta: Kencana, 2017.

  38. MD, Mahfud Moh. Politik Hukum di Indonesia. 10th ed. Depok: Rajawali Pers, 2020.

  39. Mochtar, Zainal Arifin. Kekuasaan Kehakiman: Mahkamah Konstitusi dan Diskursus Judicial Activism Vs Judicial Restraint. Depok: Rajawali Pers, 2021.

  40. Muhammad, Fatahillah Akbar. “The Impacts of Constitutional Court Decisions on Criminal Policy of Indonesia: Implikasi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Terhadap Politik Kriminal Indonesia.” Jurnal Konstitusi 21, no. 3 (September 1, 2024): 448–63. https://doi.org/10.31078/JK2136.

  41. Muhammad, Raihan. “The Urgency of The Regulation of Legislative Power During The ‘Lame Duck’ Session to Optimize Constitutionalism.” Journal of Constitutional and Governance Studies 1, no. 1 (June 24, 2024): 38–61. https://doi.org/10.20885/JCGS.VOL1.ISS1.ART3.

  42. Octavia, Nurul Aini. “Mengenal Amar Putusan Konstitusional Bersyarat dan Inkonstitusional Bersyarat yang Dianut Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam Pengujian Perundang-Undangan : Kesalahan Teoritik dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 91/PUU-XVIII/2020.” Ijtihad 16, no. 2 (December 17, 2022): 171–86. https://doi.org/10.21111/IJTIHAD.V16I2.8765.

  43. Pane, Ramadhan Siddik, and Puji Kurniawan. “Putusan MK yang Bersifat Positif Legislature.” Jurnal El-Thawalib 3, no. 4 (August 31, 2022): 612–26. https://doi.org/10.24952/EL-THAWALIB.V3I4.5939.

  44. Perbawa, Kt Sukewati Lanang P. “Open Justice Policy in Constitutional Court Decision and Law in Indonesia.” International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences 18, no. 2 (2023): 89–101. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4756307.

  45. Perludem. “Putusan MK Nomor 60/PUU-XXII/2024 tentang Ambang Batas Pencalonan Kepala Daerah di Pilkada,” August 28, 2024. https://perludem.org/2024/08/28/putusan-mk-nomor-60-puu-xxii-2024/.

  46. ———. “Tafsir Serampangan, Inkonsistensi Logika, dan Konflik Kepentingan Mahkamah Konstitusi Dalam Putusan No.90/PUU-XXI/2023 - Perkumpulan Untuk Pemilu Dan Demokrasi.” Perludem, October 17, 2023. https://perludem.org/2023/10/17/tafsir-serampangan-inkonsistensi-logika-dan-konflik-kepentingan-mahkamah-konstitusi-dalam-putusan-no-90-puu-xxi-2023/.

  47. Prabowo, Bagus Surya. “Menggagas Judicial Activism dalam Putusan Presidential Threshold  di Mahkamah Konstitusi.” Jurnal Konstitusi 19, no. 1 (March 28, 2022): 073–096. https://doi.org/10.31078/JK1914.

  48. Pratama, Nur Aji. “MEANINGFUL PARTICIPATION SEBAGAI UPAYA KOMPROMI IDEE DES RECHT PASCA PUTUSAN MK NO. 91/PUU-XVIII/2020.” CREPIDO 4, no. 2 (November 30, 2022): 137–47. https://doi.org/10.14710/CREPIDO.4.2.137-147.

  49. Pusat Studi Konstitusi FH Andalas. “Perkembangan Pengujian Perundang- Undangan di Mahkamah Konstitusi.” Jurnal Konstitusi 7, no. 6 (2016): 147–224. https://doi.org/10.31078/JK766.

  50. Rachman, Irfan Nur, Arief Hidayat, and Lita Tyesta. “The Politics of Judicial Law in the Development of the National Health Law.” Medico Legal Update 20, no. 3 (2020). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.37506/mlu.v20i3.1442.

  51. Radbruch, Gustav. “Statutory Lawlessness and Supra-Statutory Law (1946).” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 26, no. 1 (March 1, 2006): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1093/OJLS/GQI041.

  52. Ramadhan Firdaus, Fahmi. “Public Participation in Law-Making Process: A Comparative Perspective of 5 (Five) Democratic Countries: Partisipasi Publik Dalam Pembentukan Undang-Undang: Perspektif Perbandingan 5 (Lima) Negara Demokratis.” Jurnal Konstitusi 21, no. 2 (June 1, 2024): 203–25. https://doi.org/10.31078/JK2123.

  53. Reliubun, Ikhsan. “Koalisi Masyarakat Sipil Nilai Putusan MK Soal Batas Usia Cawapres Serampangan dan Inkonsisten.” TEMPO.CO, October 17, 2023. https://www.tempo.co/politik/koalisi-masyarakat-sipil-nilai-putusan-mk-soal-batas-usia-cawapres-serampangan-dan-inkonsisten-131692.

  54. Rohman, Azmi Fathu, Naufal Rizqiyanto, and Muhammad RM Fayasy Failaq. “Relevansi dan Konsistensi Penerapan Prinsip Purcell oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi Dalam Pemilihan Umum.” Lex Renaissance 9, no. 2 (2024): 450–77. https://doi.org/10.20885/JLR.VOL9.ISS2.ART9.

  55. Roux, Theunis. “Indonesia’s Judicial Review Regime in Comparative Perspective.” Constitutional Review 4, no. 2 (2018): 188–221. https://doi.org/10.31078/CONSREV422.

  56. Tatawu, Guasman, and Adrian Tawai. “The Transformation of the Role of the Constitutional Court of Indonesia: From Negative Legislature to Positive Legislature in the Context of Judicial Review Authority (A Study of Decision Number 90/Puu-Xxi/2023).” Journal of Law and Sustainable Development 11, no. 12 (December 18, 2023). https://doi.org/10.55908/sdgs.v11i12.2187.

  57. Thayer, James Bradley. The Origin and Scope of the American Doctrine of Constitutional Law - James Bradley Thayer, 1893.

  58. Tushnet, Mark. Weak Courts, Strong Rights: Judicial Review And Social Welfare Rights In Comparative Constitutional Law. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008.

  59. Walduda’ini, Al Fadillah, Idzam Fautanu, and Lutfi Fahrul Rizal. “Kritik Hukum Terhadap Peran Positive Legislature Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam Pengujian Undang-Undang.” JIHHP: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, Humaniora Dan Politik 4, no. 5 (July 16, 2024): 1569–76. https://doi.org/10.38035/JIHHP.V4I5.2312.

  60. Wiratraman, Herlambang P. “Constitutional Struggles and the Court in Indonesia’s Turn to Authoritarian Politics.” Federal Law Review 50, no. 3 (September 1, 2022): 314–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205X221107404.

  61. YLBHI. “Para Guru Besar dan Pengajar CALS Minta Majelis Kehormatan Jatuhkan Sanksi Berat Pemberhentian Ketua MK dan Berani Membatalkan Putusan MK Nomor 90/PUU-XXI/2023 – YLBHI,” 2023. https://ylbhi.or.id/informasi/siaran-pers/para-guru-besar-dan-pengajar-cals-minta-majelis-kehormatan-jatuhkan-sanksi-berat-pemberhentian-ketua-mk-dan-berani-membatalkan-putusan-mk-nomor-90-puu-xxi-2023/.

  62. Yudiansyah, Fakhrian, Eneng Rika, Laela Sari, Tegar Wahyu Hidayat, and Yeli Yana. “Perkembangan Konstitusi di Indonesia Melalui Peran Mahkamah Konstitusi Dalam Penegakan Hukum Konstitusi Dikaji Menurut Undang-Undang Nomor 24 Tahun 2003 tentang Mahkamah Konstitusi.” Jembatan Hukum : Kajian Ilmu Hukum, Sosial dan Administrasi Negara 1, no. 2 (May 25, 2024): 223–37. https://doi.org/10.62383/JEMBATAN.V1I2.273.

  63. Zīle, Jana. “JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED.” Administrative and Criminal Justice 3, no. 80 (September 30, 2017). https://doi.org/10.17770/ACJ.V3I80.2790.