Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

Abstrak :
[ABSTRAK
Pengujian 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.

---

ABSTRACT
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. , 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. ]

Abstrak :
Pembentukan Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK) berdasarkan perubahan ketiga UUD NRI 1945 sebagai lembaga baru dalam melaksanakan fungsi kekuasaan kehakiman di samping Mahkamah Agung (MA). Kewenangan yang dimiliki oleh MK berbeda dengan kewenangan yang dimiliki MA yang menguji peraturan perundang-undangan di bawah undang-undang terhadap udang-undang. Kewenangan MK sebagaimana dalam Pasal 24C ayat (1) dan (2) UUD 1945 adalah (i) MK berwenang mengadili pada tingkat pertama dan terakhir yang putusannya bersifat final untuk menguji undang-undang terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar, memutus sengketa kewenangan lembaga negara yang kewenanganya diberikan oleh Undang-Undang Dasar, memutus pembubaran partaipolitik, dan memutus perselisihan tentang hasil Pemilihan Umum; (ii) MK wajib memberikan putusan atas pendapat Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat mengenai dugaan pelanggaran oleh Presiden dan/atau Wakil Presiden menurut Undang-Undang Dasar. Kewenangan yang diberikan oleh UUD tersebut hanya untuk menguji konstitusionalitas UU terhadap UUD dan tidak diberikan kewenangan pengujian terhadap peraturan perundang-undangan lainnya. Pengujian Peraturan Pemerintah Pengganti Undang-Undang (Perpu) Nomor 4 Tahun 2009 tentang Komisi Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi oleh MK melalui putusan perkara Nomor 138/PUU-VII/2009 telah menimbulkan perbedaan pendapat tidak hanya dikalangan para hakim MK melainkan juga para ahli-ahli hukum terlebih lagi pengujian Perpu tersebut MK menyatakan berwenang melakukan pengujian dan bahkan putusan tersebut telah dijadikan yurisprudensi dan diikuti oleh hakimhakim konstitusi selanjutnya dalam memutus setiap permohonan pengujian Perpu terlihat dalam berbagai putusan MK dengan menggunakan pertimbangan hukum yang terdapat pada putusan Pengujian Perpu Nomor 4 Tahun 2009 dan dengan dasar pertimbangan itu menyatakan MK berwenang melakukan pengujian Perpu. Terhadap kewenangan yang diperoleh MK melalui penafsiran pengujian Perpu telah memperluas kewenangan yang dimilikinya yang tidak hanya terbatas pada penggujian UU namun telah bertambah dengan pengujian Perpu terhadap UUD yang sebetulnya kewenangan pengujian Perpu merupakan kewenangan DPR sebagai pembentuk UU sesuai ketentuan Pasal 22 UUD 1945. Perbandingan dengan negara-negara lain berkaitan kewenangan MK menguji Perpu, dari keempat negara yakni Jerman, Korea Selatan, Thailand dan Italia menunjukan tiga negara yakni Jerman, Korea Selatan dan Italia tidak memiliki kewenangan untuk menguji Perpu sementara satu negara yakni Thailand kewenangan MK hanya dapat menguji rancangan peraturan darurat/Perpu.

---

The establishment of the Constitutional Court (MK) by the third amendment to the Constitution NRI 1945 as a new institution in carrying out the functions of the judicial power in addition to the Supreme Court (MA). Authority possessed by the Court is different from the authority possessed MA examine the legislation under laws against shrimp reserved. The authority of the Constitutional Court as in Article 24C paragraph (1) and (2) of the 1945 Constitution are: (i) the Court authority to hear at the first and last decision is final for a law against the Constitution, rule on the dispute the authority of state institutions are an arbitrary granted by the Constitution, to decide the dissolution partaipolitik, and to decide disputes concerning the results of the General Election; (ii) The Court shall give a decision on the opinion of the House of Representatives regarding the alleged violations by the President and / or Vice President by the Constitution. The authority granted by the Constitution just to test the constitutionality of laws against the Constitution and not be authorized tests on other legislation. Testing Government Regulation in Lieu of Law (decree) No. 4 of 2009 regarding the Commission for Corruption Eradication by the Court through a ruling Case Number 138 / PUU-VII / 2009 has caused dissent not only among the judges of the Constitutional Court, but also the legal experts moreover testing the decree of the Constitutional Court states the authority to conduct testing and even the decision has been made jurisprudence and followed by the judges of the constitution later in deciding each petition decree seen in various decision of the Court using legal considerations contained in the decision of Testing Regulation No. 4 of 2009 and with the consideration that the Court declare decree authorized to conduct testing. Against the authority acquired through the interpretation of the Constitutional Court decree has expanded testing of its authorities are not just limited to penggujian Act but has increased with the testing decree against the Constitution are actually testing decree authority is the authority of Parliament as former Act in accordance with Article 22 of the 1945 Constitution Comparison with the state Other related MK-state authorities test the decree, from the four countries namely Germany, South Korea, Thailand and Italy showed three countries, namely Germany, South Korea and Italy do not have the authority to examine the decree while the Court states that the Thai authorities can only test the draft emergency ordinance/Perpu.

Abstrak :
ABSTRAK
Pengujian 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

---

ABSTRACT
Judicial 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.

Abstrak :
ABSTRAK
Mahkamah Konstitusi diberi kewenangan mengadili pada tingkat pertama dan terakhir yang putusannya bersifat final untuk menguji undang-undang terhadap UUD 1945. Sifat final putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi ditegaskan dalam Penjelasan Pasal 10 Ayat (1) Undang- Undang Nomor 24 Tahun 2003 tentang Mahkamah Konstitusi (UU MK) yakni langsung memperoleh kekuatan hukum sejak diucapkan dan tidak ada upaya hukum lain yang dapat ditempuh. Oleh karena itu, terkait dengan putusan pengujian konstitusionalitas undang-undang berlaku ketentuan sebagaimana ditentukan dalam Pasal 60 UU MK, yaitu terhadap materi muatan ayat, pasal, dan/atau bagian dalam undang-undang yang telah diuji, tidak dapat dimohonkan pengujian kembali. Namun dalam praktiknya terdapat beberapa ketentuan undang-undang yang diuji lebih dari sekali oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi. Bahkan, ada yang diputus berbeda dari putusan sebelumnya. Meski demikian, putusan-putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi relatif bisa diterima oleh masyarakat. Hal ini menjadi menarik untuk diketahui, alasan hukum apa yang digunakan Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam melakukan pengujian kembali undang-undang yang pernah diuji serta metode penalaran hukum apa yang digunakan dalam putusan-putusannya. Melalui metode penelitian yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan komparatif, tesis ini menjelaskan dua hal. Pertama, alasan hukum yang digunakan Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam pengujian undang-undang yang sudah pernah diuji. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa perbedaan alasan permohonan menjadi alasan hukum bagi Mahkamah Konstitusi untuk menguji kembali undang-undang yang pernah diuji. Dalam tesis ini, perbedaan alasan permohonan diketahui melalui perbandingan antara perkara yang diputus terdahulu dengan perkara yang diputus kemudian. Kedua, metode penalaran hukum putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam pengujian undang-undang yang diuji lebih dari sekali. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa Mahkamah Konstitusi menggunakan metode penalaran hukum yang tidak selalu sama dalam memutus perkara yang satu dengan perkara yang lain. Tesis ini memberikan perbandingan metode penalaran antara ketentuan yang diuji terdahulu dengan ketentuan yang diuji kemudian. Selain itu, diperbandingkan pula penggunaan masingmasing metode penalaran hukum terhadap perkara-perkara yang diuji dan diputus lebih dari sekali oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi secara keseluruhan.

---

ABSTRACT
Constitutional Court is conferred with the Authority at the first and final level of which the decision is final to review law against the 1945 Constitution. The final nature of Constitutional Court Decision is confirmed in the Elucidation of Article 10 Paragraph (1) Law No. 24 Year 2003 on Constitutional Court (CC Law) which is legally binding after being announced and no other legal remedies can be pursued. Therefore, in relation to the decision on the constitutionality review of law article 60 of CC Law applies which says application for repeated review against material content of sub articles, articles, and/or parts of law which have been reviewed can not be re-filed. But in practice there are several provisions of law which are reviewed more than once by the Constitutional Court. Even some are decided differently from the previous ones. However, Constitutional Court decisions relatively can be accepted by the public. It becomes interesting to find out what legal reasons used by the Constitutional Court in conducting re-review of laws which have been previously examined and what methods of legal reasoning applied in its decisions. Through juridical normative research method with comparative approach, this thesis explains two things. First, legal reasons used by the Constitutional Court in revieweing a law that has been previously examined. The result of this research shows that the diffrence in the reasons of the petition serves as legal reasons for the Constitutional Court to review again the law that has been reviewed. In this thesis, the different reasons of the petition are identified by comparing the cases decided earlier and the ones decided later. Second, methods of legal reasoning of the Constitutional Court decision in the review of law that has been formerly examined. Result of this research denotes that Constitutional Court applied methods of legal reasoning which are not always the same in deciding one case and another. This thesis provides comparison of methods of reasoning between legal provisions reviewed earlier and the ones reviewed later. Besides, the application of each method of legal reasoning in cases reviewed and decided more than once by the Constitutional Court as a whole is also compared.

Abstrak :
Skripsi ini membahas mengenai pelaksanaan kewenangan Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam melaksanakan pengujian undang-undang terhadap UUD yang dikaitkan dengan gagasan perubahan Undang-Undang Mahkamah Konstitusi. Selama ini Mahkamah Konstitusi telah memutus ratusan pengujian konstitusionalitas suatu undang-undang. Dalam perkembangannya Mahkamah Konstitusi tidak hanya memutus dengan pilihan tidak menerima, mengabulkan, atau menolak permohonan dari pemohon yang telah ditentukan dalam Undang-Undang Mahkamah Konstitusi. Namun telah terjadi perkembangan dalam putusan pengujian undang-undang yang dikeluarkannya disamping juga ada putusan yang kontroverisal. Akibatnya timbul gagasan untuk memperbaiki Undang-Undang Mahkamah Konstitusi yang dalam RUU perubahannya memunculkan beberapa ketentuan baru yang menjadi bahan kajian penulis. ......This thesis discusses about the implementation of the authority of Constitutional Court on judicial review of laws under 1945 Constitution associated with the idea of changing the Constitutional Court’s laws. In so far, Constitutional Court has decided hundreds of Constitutional review of laws. In the development of Constitutional Court, Constitutional Court not only decided the option of not accept, grant, and reject the petition of petitioners which has been determined in the Constitutional Court’s laws. However, the development on the decision of judicial review of laws which have been issued, in addition there are also some controversial decisions. So, the idea to fix the Constitutional Court’s laws in the draft legislation on amandments are bring out some new provisions which are the subject study of author.

Abstrak :
Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam melaksanakan kewenangannya untuk melakukan pengujian konstitusionalitas suatu undang-undang seringkali memutus secara ultra petita. Walaupun penerapan ultra petita ini dilarang dalam hukum perdata, akan tetapi saat ini masih belum ada ketentuan hukum positif yang mengatur terkait dengan dilakukannya ultra petita di Mahkamah Konstitusi. Sehingga hal ini menimbulkan pro dan kontra, dimana sebagian ada yang berpendapat bahwasannya ultra petita itu dilarang untuk diterapkan di Mahkamah Konstitusi, ada juga yang berpendapat bahwa hal tersebut merupakan suatu konsekuensi hukum. Terlebih Mahkamah Konstitusi memiliki karakteristik khusus yang berbeda dengan hukum lainnya. Dalam pengujian undang-undang di Mahkamah Konstitusi, putusan yang mengandung ultra petita muncul ketika adanya kepentingan dari seluruh warga negara (erga omnes). Asas ultra petita ini telah diterapkan sejak awal terbentuknya Mahkamah Konstitusi. Oleh karena itu, Penulis dalam skripsi ini ingin membahas mengenai konsep dan penerapan asas ultra petita yang dilakukan di Mahkamah Konstitusi khususnya pada perkara pengujian undang-undang, mulai dari periode tahun 2003 hingga tahun 2021. Metode penulisan yang digunakan oleh Penulis adalah yuridis normatif dengan menggunakan bahan kepustakaan. Dari hasil penelitan, Penulis menemukan beberapa dari banyaknya putusan yang mengandung ultra petita, dengan jumlah terbanyak adalah pada periode tahun 2003-2008. Putusan ultra petita tersebut dikeluarkan tentunya berdasarkan pada pertimbangan hakim (ratio decidendi) bahwa hal tersebut memang benar-benar harus dilakukan. ......The Constitutional Court in exercising its authority to examine the constitutionality of a law often decides on an ultra petita basis. Although the application of ultra petita is prohibited in civil law, there are currently no positive legal provisions governing the conduct of ultra petita in the Constitutional Court. So this raises the pros and cons, where some argue that ultra petita is prohibited from being applied in the Constitutional Court, there are also those who argue that this is a legal consequence. Moreover, the Constitutional Court has special characteristics that are different from other legal characteristics. In the judicial review at the Constitutional Court, decisions containing ultra petita arise when there is an interest from all citizens (erga omnes). The ultra petita principle has been applied since the establishment of the Constitutional Court. Therefore, the author in this thesis wants to discuss the concept and application of the ultra petita principle carried out at the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia, especially in law testing cases, starting from the period 2003 to 2021. Research method used by the author is normative juridicial using library materials. From the research results, the author found several of the many decisions containing ultra petita, with the highest number being in the 2003-2008 period. The ultra petita decision was issued based on the judge's consideration (ratio decidendi) that it really had to be done.