Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"[ABSTRAKPengujian norma konkret dalam putusan pengujian undang-undang terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 pada dasarnya tidak menjadi kewenangan MK. Pengujian terhadap norma secara teoritis haruslah bertitiktolak dari norma abstrak sebagai implikasi kedudukan MK yang menjadi pengadilan norma dan mengujinya terhadap konstitusi. Untuk menilai konstitusionalitas norma undang-undang, maka norma abstraklah yang seharusnya ditafsirkan oleh MK. Sedangkan norma konkret lebih menitikberatkan implementasi atau penerapan dari norma itu sendiri. Penerapan norma tidak dapat dilepaskan dari legalitas norma, sedangkan konstitusionalitas norma adalah menguji kebersesuain norma tesebut dengan konstitusi. Apabila landasan pengujian norma adalah Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 maka norma abstrak yang seharusnya menjadi materi utama untuk diuji. Sebaliknya ketika norma konkret yang akan diuji, maka yang harus dipertimbangkan juga adalah penerapan dari norma tersebut yang sudah sudah masuk dalam kasus konkret yang terjadi. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan kasus (case approach) yaitu 15 (lima belas) putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi sepanjang 2003-2013 dalam pengujian undang-undang terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 secara materiil yang memfokuskan pada ratio decidendi hakim konstitusi dalam menentukan konstitusionalitas norma. Hasil penelitian ini menujukkan bahwa MK dalam menguji undang-undang terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 tidak memisahkan secara dikotomis antara norma abtrak dan norma konkret. Dalam upaya melindungai hak-hak konstitusional warga negara, tidak adanya upaya hukum lanjutan yang akan ditempuh oleh Pemohon, serta untuk memberikan kepastian hukum yang adil, MK mengabulkan pengujian norma konkret. Meskipun MK tetap tegas menyatakan bahwa hal tersebut adalah norma konkret, sehingga permohonan pemohon hanya dikabulkan sebagian pada pengujian norma abstraknya saja. Sedangkan dalam hal putusan MK yang menolak pengujian norma konkret karena norma yang diujikan bukanlah persoalan konstitusionalitas norma melainkan penerapan norma dan permintaan putusan provisi (putusan sela) yang tidak relevan dengan pokok perkara. Pengujian norma konkret dalam putusan menolak adalah bentuk kehatian-hatian MK agar tidak mengadili perkara yang menjadi kewenangan peradilan lain yaitu Mahkamah Agung serta peradilan di bawahnya. Adapun terkait putusan yang menyatakan tidak dapat diterima, MK menyatakan bahwa Pemohon tidak memiliki kedudukan hukum serta MK tidak memiliki kewenangan untuk menguji norma tersebut. Akhirnya, ke depan MK dalam perlu menegaskan perihal kedudukan norma sebelum melakukan pemeriksaan lebih mendalam terhadap permohonan yang diajukan. Di samping itu MK perlu diberikan kewenangan pengaduan konstitusional (constitutional complaint) atau pertanyaan konstittusional (constitutional question) sehingga terciptanya harmonisasi penafsiran berdasarkan konstitusi.

---

ABSTRACTThe review of conrete norms in the decision of judicial review of laws against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia basically does not constitute authority of the Constitutional Court. Theoretically, norms review should be starting from abstract norms as the implications of the Constitutional Court authority. In order to review the constitutionality of laws, norms and abstract norms should be interpreted by the Constitutional Court. While concrete norms focuse more on the implementation or application of the norm itself. The application of norms cannot be separated from the legality of the norms, while constitutionality of norms is related to its coherence with with the Constitution. If the basis of norms review is the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia then abstract norms should be the main subject matter to be reviewed. Otherwise, when concrete norms are the subject matters to be reviewed, then the implementation of the norms that have been applied in concrete cases. This research is using normative juridical method with case approach in which 15 (fifteen) verdicts of the Constitutional Court of Republic of Indonesia over the period of 2003-2013 in judicial review of laws against the 1945 Constitution are analyzed. The focus is on the ratio decidendi of the Constitutional Court judges in determining the constitutionality of norms. The result of this research shows that, the Constitutional Court, in the judicial review of laws against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia does not separate abstract norms and concrete norms dichotomously. In an attempt to protect the constitutional rights of citizens, the absence of legal remedies that can be further pursued by the applicant, as well as to provide legal certainty, the Constitutional Court, granted, in its decision, the review of concrete norms. Even though the Constitutional Court remains firm in satting that it is a concrete norm, the applicant's petition is granted in part which is concerning the review the abstract norms only. Whereas, with respect to the verdict of the constitutional court that rejected the review of concrete norms, it is because the review is not on the constitutionality of norms but the application of the norms and also concerns a petition for an interlocutory decision which is irrelevant to the subject matter of the case. The review of concrete norms in a rejecting ruling is a form of prudence by the Constitutional Court in order not to prosecute the matters which constitute the authority the other judicial bodies, namely the Supreme Court and the lower courts. As for the ruling which declared a petition inadmissible, the Constitutional Court stated that the applicant has no legal standing and the Constitutional Court does not have the authority to test these norms. Finally, in the future, the Constitutional Court needs to affirm the status of norms before further examining in depth the petition filed. In addition, the Constitutional Court should be conferred with the authority to hear constitutional complaint and constitutional question in order to create the harmonization of interpretation based on the Constitution.;The review of conrete norms in the decision of judicial review of laws against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia basically does not constitute authority of the Constitutional Court. Theoretically, norms review should be starting from abstract norms as the implications of the Constitutional Court authority. In order to review the constitutionality of laws, norms and abstract norms should be interpreted by the Constitutional Court. While concrete norms focuse more on the implementation or application of the norm itself. The application of norms cannot be separated from the legality of the norms, while constitutionality of norms is related to its coherence with with the Constitution. If the basis of norms review is the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia then abstract norms should be the main subject matter to be reviewed. Otherwise, when concrete norms are the subject matters to be reviewed, then the implementation of the norms that have been applied in concrete cases. This research is using normative juridical method with case approach in which 15 (fifteen) verdicts of the Constitutional Court of Republic of Indonesia over the period of 2003-2013 in judicial review of laws against the 1945 Constitution are analyzed. The focus is on the ratio decidendi of the Constitutional Court judges in determining the constitutionality of norms. The result of this research shows that, the Constitutional Court, in the judicial review of laws against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia does not separate abstract norms and concrete norms dichotomously. In an attempt to protect the constitutional rights of citizens, the absence of legal remedies that can be further pursued by the applicant, as well as to provide legal certainty, the Constitutional Court, granted, in its decision, the review of concrete norms. Even though the Constitutional Court remains firm in satting that it is a concrete norm, the applicant's petition is granted in part which is concerning the review the abstract norms only. Whereas, with respect to the verdict of the constitutional court that rejected the review of concrete norms, it is because the review is not on the constitutionality of norms but the application of the norms and also concerns a petition for an interlocutory decision which is irrelevant to the subject matter of the case. The review of concrete norms in a rejecting ruling is a form of prudence by the Constitutional Court in order not to prosecute the matters which constitute the authority the other judicial bodies, namely the Supreme Court and the lower courts. As for the ruling which declared a petition inadmissible, the Constitutional Court stated that the applicant has no legal standing and the Constitutional Court does not have the authority to test these norms. Finally, in the future, the Constitutional Court needs to affirm the status of norms before further examining in depth the petition filed. In addition, the Constitutional Court should be conferred with the authority to hear constitutional complaint and constitutional question in order to create the harmonization of interpretation based on the Constitution.;The review of conrete norms in the decision of judicial review of laws against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia basically does not constitute authority of the Constitutional Court. Theoretically, norms review should be starting from abstract norms as the implications of the Constitutional Court authority. In order to review the constitutionality of laws, norms and abstract norms should be interpreted by the Constitutional Court. While concrete norms focuse more on the implementation or application of the norm itself. The application of norms cannot be separated from the legality of the norms, while constitutionality of norms is related to its coherence with with the Constitution. If the basis of norms review is the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia then abstract norms should be the main subject matter to be reviewed. Otherwise, when concrete norms are the subject matters to be reviewed, then the implementation of the norms that have been applied in concrete cases. This research is using normative juridical method with case approach in which 15 (fifteen) verdicts of the Constitutional Court of Republic of Indonesia over the period of 2003-2013 in judicial review of laws against the 1945 Constitution are analyzed. The focus is on the ratio decidendi of the Constitutional Court judges in determining the constitutionality of norms. The result of this research shows that, the Constitutional Court, in the judicial review of laws against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia does not separate abstract norms and concrete norms dichotomously. In an attempt to protect the constitutional rights of citizens, the absence of legal remedies that can be further pursued by the applicant, as well as to provide legal certainty, the Constitutional Court, granted, in its decision, the review of concrete norms. Even though the Constitutional Court remains firm in satting that it is a concrete norm, the applicant's petition is granted in part which is concerning the review the abstract norms only. Whereas, with respect to the verdict of the constitutional court that rejected the review of concrete norms, it is because the review is not on the constitutionality of norms but the application of the norms and also concerns a petition for an interlocutory decision which is irrelevant to the subject matter of the case. The review of concrete norms in a rejecting ruling is a form of prudence by the Constitutional Court in order not to prosecute the matters which constitute the authority the other judicial bodies, namely the Supreme Court and the lower courts. As for the ruling which declared a petition inadmissible, the Constitutional Court stated that the applicant has no legal standing and the Constitutional Court does not have the authority to test these norms. Finally, in the future, the Constitutional Court needs to affirm the status of norms before further examining in depth the petition filed. In addition, the Constitutional Court should be conferred with the authority to hear constitutional complaint and constitutional question in order to create the harmonization of interpretation based on the Constitution.;The review of conrete norms in the decision of judicial review of laws against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia basically does not constitute authority of the Constitutional Court. Theoretically, norms review should be starting from abstract norms as the implications of the Constitutional Court authority. In order to review the constitutionality of laws, norms and abstract norms should be interpreted by the Constitutional Court. While concrete norms focuse more on the implementation or application of the norm itself. The application of norms cannot be separated from the legality of the norms, while constitutionality of norms is related to its coherence with with the Constitution. If the basis of norms review is the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia then abstract norms should be the main subject matter to be reviewed. Otherwise, when concrete norms are the subject matters to be reviewed, then the implementation of the norms that have been applied in concrete cases. This research is using normative juridical method with case approach in which 15 (fifteen) verdicts of the Constitutional Court of Republic of Indonesia over the period of 2003-2013 in judicial review of laws against the 1945 Constitution are analyzed. The focus is on the ratio decidendi of the Constitutional Court judges in determining the constitutionality of norms. The result of this research shows that, the Constitutional Court, in the judicial review of laws against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia does not separate abstract norms and concrete norms dichotomously. In an attempt to protect the constitutional rights of citizens, the absence of legal remedies that can be further pursued by the applicant, as well as to provide legal certainty, the Constitutional Court, granted, in its decision, the review of concrete norms. Even though the Constitutional Court remains firm in satting that it is a concrete norm, the applicant's petition is granted in part which is concerning the review the abstract norms only. Whereas, with respect to the verdict of the constitutional court that rejected the review of concrete norms, it is because the review is not on the constitutionality of norms but the application of the norms and also concerns a petition for an interlocutory decision which is irrelevant to the subject matter of the case. The review of concrete norms in a rejecting ruling is a form of prudence by the Constitutional Court in order not to prosecute the matters which constitute the authority the other judicial bodies, namely the Supreme Court and the lower courts. As for the ruling which declared a petition inadmissible, the Constitutional Court stated that the applicant has no legal standing and the Constitutional Court does not have the authority to test these norms. Finally, in the future, the Constitutional Court needs to affirm the status of norms before further examining in depth the petition filed. In addition, the Constitutional Court should be conferred with the authority to hear constitutional complaint and constitutional question in order to create the harmonization of interpretation based on the Constitution., The review of conrete norms in the decision of judicial review of laws against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia basically does not constitute authority of the Constitutional Court. Theoretically, norms review should be starting from abstract norms as the implications of the Constitutional Court authority. In order to review the constitutionality of laws, norms and abstract norms should be interpreted by the Constitutional Court. While concrete norms focuse more on the implementation or application of the norm itself. The application of norms cannot be separated from the legality of the norms, while constitutionality of norms is related to its coherence with with the Constitution. If the basis of norms review is the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia then abstract norms should be the main subject matter to be reviewed. Otherwise, when concrete norms are the subject matters to be reviewed, then the implementation of the norms that have been applied in concrete cases. This research is using normative juridical method with case approach in which 15 (fifteen) verdicts of the Constitutional Court of Republic of Indonesia over the period of 2003-2013 in judicial review of laws against the 1945 Constitution are analyzed. The focus is on the ratio decidendi of the Constitutional Court judges in determining the constitutionality of norms. The result of this research shows that, the Constitutional Court, in the judicial review of laws against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia does not separate abstract norms and concrete norms dichotomously. In an attempt to protect the constitutional rights of citizens, the absence of legal remedies that can be further pursued by the applicant, as well as to provide legal certainty, the Constitutional Court, granted, in its decision, the review of concrete norms. Even though the Constitutional Court remains firm in satting that it is a concrete norm, the applicant's petition is granted in part which is concerning the review the abstract norms only. Whereas, with respect to the verdict of the constitutional court that rejected the review of concrete norms, it is because the review is not on the constitutionality of norms but the application of the norms and also concerns a petition for an interlocutory decision which is irrelevant to the subject matter of the case. The review of concrete norms in a rejecting ruling is a form of prudence by the Constitutional Court in order not to prosecute the matters which constitute the authority the other judicial bodies, namely the Supreme Court and the lower courts. As for the ruling which declared a petition inadmissible, the Constitutional Court stated that the applicant has no legal standing and the Constitutional Court does not have the authority to test these norms. Finally, in the future, the Constitutional Court needs to affirm the status of norms before further examining in depth the petition filed. In addition, the Constitutional Court should be conferred with the authority to hear constitutional complaint and constitutional question in order to create the harmonization of interpretation based on the Constitution.]"

"ABSTRAKPengujian undang-undang merupakan kewenangan yang paling dominan terjadi di Mahkamah Konstitusi. Akan tetapi hingga empat belas tahun Mahkamah Konstitusi dibentuk belum ada ketentuan yang secara khusus mengatur mengenai batas waktu penyelesaiannya. Tesis ini membahas sekaligus merumuskan urgensi batas waktu penyelesaian pengujian undang-undang di Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah metode penelitian normatif yang disempurnakan dengan perbandingan lima negara. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukan bahwa telah terjadi standar ganda antara batas waktu pengujian undang-undang dengan sengketa yang lain dimana sengketa pembubaran partai politik, perselisihan hasil pemilihan umum dan impeachment memiliki batas waktu penyelesaian sedangkan pengujian undang-undang yang notabenenya adalah kewenangan dominan dari Mahkamah Konstitusi justru tidak memiliki batas waktu penyelesaiannya.Selain itu ketiadaan batas waktu penyelesaian juga terbukti menciptakan suatu kondisi yang dinamakan justice delayed is justice denied, dimana baik Pemohon, Masyarakat dan Mahkamah Agung tidak mengetahui kepastian waktu tentang putusan pengujian undang-undang akan memiliki kekuatan hukum tetap. Kasus korupsi mantan Hakim Konstitusi berinisial ldquo;PA rdquo; juga menjadi studi dalam penelitian ini yang membuktikan bahwa ketiadaan batas waktu menciptakan ruang negosiasi antara para pihak dan oknum pengadilan untuk melakukan tindakan koruptif. Maka dari itu perlu adanya upaya untuk merevisi Undang-Undang Mahkamah Konstitusi dengan menambahkan tiga formulasi batas waktu penyelesaian pengujian undang-undang dalam suatu rumusan norma. Ketiga rumusan tersebut adalah batas waktu pengujian undang-undang yang bersifat kerugian potensial terhadap peristiwa konkret, batas waktu penyelesaian terhadap PERPU, dan batas waktu secara umum. Apabila Mahkamah Konstitusi memutus lebih dari waktu yang telah ditentukan maka terdapat konsekuensi hukum yang harus dilakukan berupa melakukan notifikasi dan penjelasan yang rasional kepada Pemohon dan Masyarakat

---

ABSTRACTJudicial Review represents the most dominant authority at the Constitutional Court. However, it has been fourteen years since the establishment of the Constitutional Court and the regulation to specifically determine a definite deadline for case resolution has yet to be issued. This theses discusses and also formulate the urgency to establish case resolution deadline for judicial review at the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. The research method applied utilizes normative research method improvised with comparative study from three countries. Research results revealed signs of double standards between the deadlines for judicial review with other judicial disputes, whereas political party dissolution dispute, general election results dispute and impeachment presented definite deadline for case resolution while judicial review which supposedly represents the domain jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court fails to submit any deadline for case resolution. In alternative, that the vacuum in such deadline has generated the condition known as rdquo justice delayed is justice denied rdquo , in which the Applicant, Public and the Supreme Court is shrouded concerning the definite deadline for the judicial review, to interpret any legal binding effect out of it. The corruption case of ldquo PA rdquo as former Constitutional Court was also investigated in this research as an evidence that the vacuum in the deadline has in turn created a negotiation room between parties and court officials to conduct corruptive actions. As such, the necessity to revised the Law on Constitutional Court is of paramount importance by adding three formula on deadline for case resolution within a normative framework. Those three formulations constitutes deadline in judicial review for laws with potential laws in nature to concrete events, deadline in judicial review to PERPU, and general deadline. In the event that the Constitutional Court issued a decision for such case beyond the agreed deadline, then such act will trigger mandatory legal consequences comprised of issuing notification and rational reasoning to the Applicant and Public at large. "

"Penafsiran konstitusi berdasarkan Pancasila harus dilakukan oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia (MK-RI) dalam pengujian undang-undang terhadap UUD 1945. Hal itu hendaknya dilakukan dengan menggunakan suatu pendekatan penafsiran yang holistis, integratif dan dinamis. Jika hal tersebut tidak dipenuhi akan cenderung menghasilkan putusan yang parsial, nonintegratif, statis, dan/atau liar. Implikasinya adalah justifikasi dan legitimasi normatif putusan-putusan MK-RI akan menjadi lemah. Untuk itu, penelitian disertasi ini mengangkat permasalahan konsepsi penafsiran konstitusi berdasarkan Pancasila secara teoritis maupun praktis, dan menawarkan suatu pendekatan baru dalam penafsiran konstitusi yang mampu menjawab permasalahan yang dikaji. Adapun pokok permasalahan yang diangkat dalam penelitian disertasi ini berfokus pada empat hal penting. Pertama, penjelasan mengenai konsepsi penafsiran purposif Aharon Barak berikut keunggulannya dalam upaya mewujudkan suatu pendekatan penafsiran konstitusi yang holistis, integratif, dan dinamis. Kedua, argumentasi penafsiran konstitusi berdasarkan Pancasila harus diterapkan oleh MK-RI dalam pengujian undang-undang terhadap UUD 1945. Ketiga, analisis penafsiran konstitusi berdasarkan Pancasila dalam pertimbangan hukum beberapa Putusan MK-RI Periode 2015-2018 terkait pengujian undang-undang terhadap UUD 1945. Keempat, relevansi penafsiran purposif Aharon Barak bagi upaya mewujudkan suatu pendekatan penafsiran konstitusi berdasarkan Pancasila secara holistis, integratif, dan dinamis dalam pengujian undang-undang terhadap UUD 1945 di MK-RI, berikut konstruksinya. Keempat pokok permasalahan tersebut dikaji dengan mengacu pada tiga teori utama, yakni: teori konstitusi, teori penafsiran konstitusi, dan teori penafsiran purposif Aharon Barak. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah penelitian hukum normatif dengan pendekatan filsafat hukum, sejarah hukum, dan kasus. Sedangkan analisis data dilakukan secara deskriptif dan kualitatif. Penelitian disertasi ini menyimpulkan bahwa penafsiran purposif Barak bersifat eklektik yang holistis, integratif dan dinamis serta memiliki keunggulannya tersendiri dibandingkan penafsiran konstitusi lainnya dalam aliran orisinalisme, nonorisinalisme, maupun eklektisisme. Adapun penafsiran konstitusi berdasarkan Pancasila harus diterapkan oleh MK-RI dalam pengujian undang-undang terhadap UUD 1945 didasarkan pada alasan filosofis, yuridis, dan sosiologis. Hal itu hendaknya dilakukan dengan pendekatan penafsiran yang holistis, integratif, dan dinamis. Pernyataan tersebut selaras dengan pandangan MK-RI yang menegaskan perlunya penafsiran konstitusi berdasarkan Pancasila secara holistis, integratif dan dinamis. Hanya saja penafsiran konstitusi yang dilakukan oleh MK-RI Periode 2015-2018 belum menjamin akan terwujudnya suatu penafsiran yang holistis, integratif, dan dinamis. Berdasarkan analisis sebanyak 225 putusan MK-RI terkait pengujian konstitusional dari tahun 2015-2018 dengan menggunakan penafsiran purposif Aharon Barak, masih ditemukan sebanyak 74 putusan MK-RI yang belum memenuhi prinsip penafsiran holistis, integratif, dan dinamis. Untuk itu, penelitian ini mengajukan pendekatan penafsiran konstitusi berdasarkan Pancasila secara holistis, integratif, dan dinamis dengan mengembangkan penafsiran purposif Aharon Barak. Meskipun penafsiran purposif Aharon Barak ini relevan untuk dikembangkan di Indonesia, namun perlu diselaraskan dengan konteks sistem hukum Indonesia yang berbasis pada Pancasila. Pendekatan ini bertumpu pada tiga komponen utama, yaitu semantik, tujuan (tujuan subjektif, objektif, dan Pancasila), dan diskresi yudisial yang dapat mengakomodir ragam metode penafsiran konstitusi pada umumnya. Dengan demikian, hasil penafsiran konstitusi oleh MK-RI akan memiliki landasan justifikasi dan legitimasi yang kuat secara normatif.

---

Constitutional interpretation based on Pancasila must be performed by the Constitutional Court of Indonesia (MK-RI) in reviewing laws against the 1945 Constitution. It requires a holistic, integrative, and dynamic interpretation approach. If it does not run well, it will produce a partial, non-integrative, static, and/or wild decision. It implicates that normative justification and legitimacy of the Constitutional Court's decision to be weak. Therefore, this dissertation research explains the constitutional interpretation concept based on Pancasila theoretically and practically, and then to propose a new approach in constitutional interpretation to solve the research problems. There are four main issues in this dissertation research. First, the conception of Aharon Barak’s purposive interpretation and its advantages to realize a holistic, integrative, and dynamic approach in constitutional interpretation. Second, argument of the constitutional interpretation based on Pancasila must be applied by the MK-RI in reviewing laws against the 1945 Constitution. Third, analysis of constitutional interpretation based on Pancasila in law consideration of some decision of MK-RI during 2015-2018 is related to judicial review of 1945 Constitution. Fourth, relevancy of Aharon Barak's purposive interpretation to realize a holistic, integrative, and dynamic constitutional interpretation approach based on Pancasila in examining laws against the 1945 Constitution at the MK-RI and its construction. The four main problems are studied by referring to three main theories: theory of constitutional, theory of constitutional interpretation and theory of purposive interpretation of Aharon Barak. The research method used is normative legal research by law philosophy, legal history, and case study approach. Meanwhile, data analysis was carried out descriptively and qualitatively. This research concludes that Barak's purposive interpretation is eclecticism that is holistic, integrative, and dynamic as well as it has special advantages compared to other constitution interpretation in originalism, non-originalism, and eclecticism. Interpretation of the constitution based on Pancasila must be applied by the MK-RI in judicial review of the 1945 Constitution based on philosophical, juridical, and sociological reasons by applying a holistic, integral, and dynamic interpretation approach. This statement is in line with the opinion of MK-RI to confirm the need of that approach when they interpret the 1945 Constitution. However, the constitutional interpretation carried out by the MK-RI during 2015-2018 did not assure the realization of a holistic, integrative, and dynamic interpretation. Based on Aharon Barak's purposive interpretation to analyze 225 of MK-RI decisions related to the constitutional review during 2015-2018, there were 74 Constitutional Court decisions that have not fulfil the holistic, integrative, and dynamic interpretation principles. For this reason, this study proposes the interpretation of the constitution based on Pancasila in holistic, integral, and dynamic approach by developing Aharon Barak's purposive interpretation. However, this interpretation should be harmonized by the Indonesian legal system which is based on Pancasila. This approach is based on three main components, which are semantic, purposes (subjective, objective, and Pancasila), and judicial discretion that is able to accommodate variety of constitutional interpretation methods in general. Thus, the results of the constitutional interpretation by the MK-RI will have a strong normative justification and legitimacy basis"

"Judicial review yang digagas oleh Muhammad Yamin dalam Rapat BPUPKI pada tahun 1945 namun hal itu tidak diterima. Judicial review merupakan salah satu kewenangan Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK), gagasan tersebut dapat dikatakan sebagai cikal bakal MK. Dalam KRIS 1949 judicial review mendapatkan wadah konstitusional namun dalam bentuk pengujian peraturan perundang-undangan tingkat daerah negara bagian terhadap konstitusi, sedangkan undang-undang Federal tidak dapat diganggu gugat dan dilanjtkan dalam UUDS 1950, sebagai cerminan sistem/paham supremasi parlementer. Gagasan tersebut muncul kembali di akhir pemerintahna Orde Lama namun dalam bentuk legislative review/political review namun MPRS gagal mewujudkannya. Barulah pada Era reformasi tahun 2000 legislative review tersebut terwujud melalui TAP MPR No. III/MPR/2000, kemudian dengan dibentuknya MK pada perubahan UUD 1945 tahun 2001-2002 mendapatkan bentuknya yang konkret dan dijabarkan ke dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 24 Tahun 2003 tentang Mahkamah Konstitusi. Dalam waktu singkat MK sebagai salah satu pelaku kekuasaan kehakiman tumbuh dan berkembang menjadi lembaga negara yang berwibawa dan dapat menyelesaikan berbagai persoalan politik dan hukum ketatanegaraan antara lain penyelesaian sengketa kewenangan antarlembaga negara, sengketa pemilihan umum (legislatif dan pilpres/wapres), dan pengujian UU yang putusannya relatif dapat diterima oleh semua pihak yang bersengketa, karena dianggap cukup adil dan berimbang, dan tidak menimbulkan gejolak sosial dan politik di masyarakat. Selain itu yang berkaitan dengan penghormatan, perlindungan, dan penegakan hak asasi manusia yang merupakan hak dasar bagi warga Negara yang antara lain selama ini termatikan secara politik dan keperdataan."

"Pengujian undang-undang terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945 (UUD NRI Tahun 1945) merupakan kewenangan yang diberikan UUD NRI Tahun 1945 kepada Mahkamah Konstitusi. Akibat hukum dari pengujian suatu undang-undang yang tidak sesuai dengan konstitusi ditentukan lebih lanjut dalam Pasal 56 dan Pasal 57 Undang-Undang Nomor 24 Tahun 2003 tentang Mahkamah Konstitusi, yaitu tidak mempunyai kekuatan hukum mengikat. Suatu undang-undang dinyatakan tidak mempunyai kekuatan hukum mengikat, dikarenakan prosedur pembentukan tidak sesuai UUD NRI Tahun 1945 atau materi muatan ayat, pasal, dan/atau bagian dari undang-undang bertentangan dengan UUD NRI Tahun 1945. Mendasari ketentuan Pasal 56 dan Pasal 57 Undang-Undang Mahkamah Konstitusi tersebut dapat dipahami bahwa inti dari kewenangan Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam pengujian undang-undang adalah untuk membatalkan norma yang bertentangan dengan UUD NRI Tahun 1945. Akan tetapi, dalam beberapa putusannya, Mahkamah Konstitusi tidak hanya membatalkan norma, melainkan juga membuat norma yang berakibat pada terjadinya perubahan UUD NRI Tahun 1945 melalui penafsiran. Kendati perubahan UUD NRI Tahun 1945 melalui penafsiran Mahkamah Konstitusi tersebut tidak ditentukan dalam UUD NRI Tahun 1945, namun hal tersebut diperlukan untuk memastikan UUD NRI Tahun 1945 tetap sesuai dengan kebutuhan dan perkembangan ketatanegaraan. Dengan menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif, tesis ini akan menjelaskan 2 (dua) pokok bahasan. Pertama, sebab terjadinya perubahan UUD NRI Tahun 1945 melalui penafsiran Mahkamah Konstitusi. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa Mahkamah Konstitusi melakukan penafsiran konstitusi dalam pengujian undang-undang dengan memberikan makna tekstual (textual meaning) terhadap UUD NRI Tahun 1945 melalui pemaknaan yang berbeda dari makna asli (original meaning) UUD NRI Tahun 1945. Sehingga, secara materiil terjadi perubahan UUD NRI Tahun 1945 yang disebabkan adanya penafsiran Mahkamah Konstitusi yang menganggap kalimat konstitusi tidak jelas atau tidak memberikan jalan keluar. Kedua, akibat hukum perubahan UUD NRI Tahun 1945 melalui penafsiran Mahkamah Konstitusi. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa: (i) terjadi perubahan makna tekstual terhadap UUD NRI Tahun 1945 yang berakibat pada terjadinya perubahan implementasi ketentuan UUD NRI Tahun 1945; dan (ii) wewenang MPR untuk mengubah UUD NRI Tahun 1945 tidak menjadi hilang setalah perubahan UUD NRI Tahun 1945 melalui penafsiran Mahkamah Konstitusi. Sebab, wewenang MPR untuk mengubah UUD NRI Tahun 1945 merupakan wewenang atribusi yang bersumber dari UUD NRI Tahun 1945, sehingga tidak akan hilang sepanjang tidak dihapus dari UUD NRI Tahun 1945.

---

The judicial review of the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia 1945 (UUD NRI Tahun 1945) is an authority given to the Constitutional Court by the UUD NRI Tahun 1945. The legal consequences of reviewing a law that is inconsistent with the constitution are further specified in Article 56 and Article 57 of Law Number 24 of 2003 concerning the Constitutional Court, namely that they do not have binding legal force. A law is declared to have no binding legal force because its formulation is not in accordance with the UUD NRI Tahun 1945 or the contents of paragraphs, articles and/or parts of the procedural law are contrary to the UUD NRI Tahun 1945. Based on the provisions of Article 56 and Article 57 of the Law It can be understood that the essence of the Constitutional Court's authority in reviewing laws is to abolish norms that are contrary to the UUD NRI Tahun 1945. However, in several of its decisions, the Constitutional Court not only annuls norms, but also makes norms that result in fatal in the occurrence of amendments to the UUD NRI Tahun 1945 through monitoring. Although the amendment to the UUD NRI Tahun 1945 through the stipulation of the Constitutional Court was not specified in the UUD NRI Tahun 1945, this was necessary to ensure that the UUD NRI Tahun 1945 remained in accordance with the needs and developments of the state administration. By using normative juridical research methods, this thesis will explain 2 (two) main topics. First, the reason for the amendment to the UUD NRI Tahun 1945 through the interpretation of the Constitutional Court. The results of the study show that the Constitutional Court interprets the constitution in judicial review by giving a textual meaning to the UUD NRI Tahun 1945 through a different meaning from the original meaning of the UUD NRI Tahun 1945. Thus, materially there was a change in the UUD NRI Tahun 1945 due to the interpretation of the Constitutional Court which considered the sentence of the constitution to be unclear or did not provide a way out. Second, the legal consequences of changing the UUD NRI Tahun 1945 through the interpretation of the Constitutional Court. The results showed that: (i) there was a change in the textual meaning of the UUD NRI Tahun 1945 which resulted in a change in the implementation of the provisions of the UUD NRI Tahun 1945; and (ii) the MPR’s authority to amend the UUD NRI Tahun 1945 was not lost after the amendment to the UUD NRI Tahun 1945 was through the interpretation of the Constitutional Court. This is because the MPR’s authority to amend the UUD NRI Tahun 1945 is an attribution authority originating from the UUD NRI Tahun 1945, so it will not be lost as long as it is not removed from the UUD NRI Tahun 1945"