Hamzah Fansuri Hidayat, Rusnan, Ashari

INKONSISTENSI MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI DALAM MEMUMUTUS PERKARA YANG BERSIFAT OPEN LEGAL POLICY

Introduction

Inkonsistensi mahkamah konstitusi dalam memumutus perkara yang bersifat open legal policy. Analisis inkonsistensi MK dalam putusan open legal policy, dampaknya pada keadilan dan kepastian hukum. Penelitian normatif ini rekomendasikan aturan lebih jelas.

Abstract

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui apa yang menyebabkan Mahkamah Konstitusi inkonsisten pada perkara open legal policy dan apa implikasinya dilihat dari nilai keadilan dan kepastian hukum. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian jenis normatif dimana peneliti mengkaji permasalahan dengan mengacu pada aturan tertulis, konsep, teori, serta doktrin-doktrin yang relevan dengan judul penelitian ini. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa Makamah Konstitusi berubah arah dikarenakan faktor internal dan eksternal serta dilihat dari nilai keadilan dan kepastian hukum Mahkamah Konstitusi tidaklah salah dalam berubah arah dan menghadirkan keadilan subtantif untuk menyelesaikan permasalahan yang terjadi. Melalui penelitian ini diharapkan agar dapat dibentuk suatu aturan yang jelas dan konkrit terkait dengan batas kewenangan dan parameter open legal policy.

Review

This research addresses a critical and highly relevant issue within Indonesian constitutional law: the observed inconsistency of the Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) when adjudicating cases involving "open legal policy." The study's primary objective is to identify the underlying causes of this inconsistency and to analyze its implications from the perspectives of justice and legal certainty. Employing a normative research methodology, which relies on an examination of written rules, concepts, theories, and relevant doctrines, the authors present findings suggesting that the shifts in the Court's direction are attributable to a combination of internal and external factors. Interestingly, the research posits that these changes are not inherently flawed, but rather contribute to achieving substantive justice in resolving prevailing issues. A significant strength of this study lies in its direct engagement with the delicate balance between judicial review and legislative discretion, particularly through the lens of open legal policy. The tension between achieving justice and upholding legal certainty in such constitutional matters is a perennial challenge, making this inquiry particularly valuable. While the abstract effectively highlights the conclusion that the Court's shifts contribute to "substantive justice," the full paper would benefit from a more detailed exposition of the specific "internal and external factors" driving these changes. Furthermore, a deeper exploration of the theoretical framework and the *specific* legal doctrines or precedents used to justify the claim that the Constitutional Court's evolving stance "is not wrong" and indeed delivers "substantive justice" would significantly bolster the argument's persuasiveness and analytical rigor. The research effectively underscores the complexities faced by the Constitutional Court and its crucial role in shaping public policy through judicial review. Its findings are of considerable importance not only for legal scholars and practitioners but also for the Constitutional Court itself, potentially informing its future deliberations. Crucially, the study concludes with a forward-looking recommendation: the urgent need for the establishment of clear and concrete regulations pertaining to the Constitutional Court's jurisdictional boundaries and the definitive parameters of "open legal policy." This recommendation itself highlights the practical implications of the identified inconsistencies and reinforces the study's call for greater clarity and predictability in a vital area of constitutional governance, ultimately contributing to both legal certainty and the pursuit of justice.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.