Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 75 Download : 119

Main Article Content

Abstract

There are differing opinions regarding the Constitutional Court's decision to review laws related to elections after the election stages have begun, which indicates a lack of implementation of the Purcell principle. This principle states that the court cannot make decisions that affect changes to election rules once the election stage has begun, as it would make it difficult for organizers to adjust the rules and create confusion for the public. The aim of this research is to answer two questions: (1) how can the concepts of the Purcell principle and judicial restraint be explained in relation to the judiciary? and (2) what are the chances of applying the Purcell principle as a form of judicial restraint by the Constitutional Court when reviewing laws during the election stage? This is normative legal research that analyzes secondary data, including relevant laws and regulations, and various related literature. The findings show that the Purcell principle and judicial restraint have developed as concepts in the practice of the United States judiciary. Judges who apply the Purcell principle also apply the concept of judicial restraint because the court limits itself from making decisions that impact election rules during the election stage, thereby demonstrating the judge's attitude in applying judicial restraint. Moreover, there are several opportunities for the Constitutional Court to apply the Purcell principle as a form of judicial restraint when reviewing laws during the election stage.

Keywords

purcell principle judicial restraint constitutional court

Article Details

License

Copyright (c) 2024 Dian Agung Wicaksono

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

References

  1. Amiruddin dan Zainal Asikin, Pengantar Metode Penelitian Hukum. Jakarta: RajaGrafindo Persada, 2004.
  2. Bickel, Alexander M., The Last Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics. Indiana: The Bobbs-Merrill Company Inc., 1968.
  3. Soekanto, Soerjono dan Sri Mamudji, Penelitian Hukum Normatif Suatu Tinjauan Umum. Jakarta: RajaGrafindo Persada, 2007.
  4. Carter, Brittany. “The Purcell Principle and The Antiblackness of Constitutional Fundamentalism.” American University Law Review 72, no. 1561 (2023).
  5. Codrington III, Wilfred U. “Purcell in Pandemic.” New York University Law Review 96, no. 4 (2021).
  6. DeGirolami, Marc O. dan Kevin C. Walsh. “Judge Posner, Judge Wilkinson, and Judicial Critique of Constitutional Theory.” Notre Dame Law Review 90, no. 2 (2014).
  7. Dodsworth, Harry B. “The Positive and Negative Purcell Principle,” Utah Law Review 2022, no. 5 (2022).
  8. Dressel, Björn. “Courts and Governance in Asia: Exploring Variations and Effects.” Hong Kong Law Journal 42, no. 1 (2012).
  9. Gao, Ruoyun. “Why the Purcell Principle Should be Abolished.” Duke Law Journal 71 (2022).
  10. Gilleran, Samuel D. “Purcell v. Gonzalez, Principle and Problem-Native American Voting Rights in the 2018 North Dakota Elections.” Wake Forest Law Review 55, no. 2 (2020).
  11. Hasen, Richard L. “Reining in The Purcell Principle.” Florida State University Law Review 43, no. 427 (2016).
  12. Horowitz, Donald L. “Constitutional Courts: A Primer for Decision Makers.” Journal of Democracy 17, no. 4 (2006).
  13. Houston, Rachael. “Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?: How the US Supreme Court Defines ‘Time’ Using the Purcell Principle.” Nevada Law Journal 23, no. 3 (2023).
  14. Kavanagh, Aileen. “Judicial Restraint in the Pursuit of Justice.” The University of Toronto Law Journal 60, no. 1 (2010).
  15. Posner, Richard A. “The Rise and Fall of Judicial Self-Restraint”, California Law Review 100, no. 3 (2012).
  16. _______“The Meaning of Judicial Self-Restraint”, Indiana Law Journal 59, no. 1 (1983).
  17. Shemtob, Zachary Baron. “Following Thayer: The Conflicting Models of Judicial Restraint.” Boston University Public Interest Law Journal 21, no. 1 (2011).
  18. Talmadge, Philip. “Understanding the Limits of Power: Judicial Restraint in General Jurisdiction Court Systems.” Seattle University Law Review 22, no. 3 (1999).
  19. Thayer, James B. “The Origin and Scope of the American Doctrine of Constitutional Law.” Harvard Law Review 7, no. 3 (1893).
  20. Watson, Danika Elizabeth. “Free and Fair: Judicial Intervention in Elections Beyond the Purcell Principle and Anderson-Burdick Balancing,” Fordham Law Review, 90, no. 3 (2021).
  21. Wicaksono, Dian Agung dan Andi Sandi Antonius Tabusassa Tonralipu. “Mencari Jejak Konsep Judicial Restraint dalam Praktik Kekuasaan Kehakiman di Indonesia.” Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan 51, no. 1 (2021).
  22. Peraturan Komisi Pemilihan Umum Nomor 3 Tahun 2022 tentang Tahapan dan Jadwal Penyelenggaraan Pemilihan Umum Tahun 2024.
  23. Mochtar, Zainal Arifin. “Patah Palu Hakim di Hadapan Politik?”, Kompas, 17 April 2023.
  24. Wicaksono, Dian Agung. “Putusan MK Bukan untuk Sang Putra Mahkota”, Kompas, 6 November 2023.
  25. _______ “Kembali Bersandar pada MK?”, Kompas, 10 November 2023.
  26. Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia, “Siaran Pers: MKMK Resmi Dibentuk”, https://www.mkri.id/public/content/infoumum/press/pdf/press_3016_24.10.23%20MKMK_DIBENTUK.pdf, diakses 25 Februari 2024.