Conditional Decisions as Instrument Guarding the Supremacy of the Constitution (Analysis of conditional decisions of Indonesian Constitutional Court in 2003 - 2017)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.blj.2021.008.01.06Keywords:
constitutional court, conditionally constitutional, conditionally unconstitutional, supremacy of the constitution, additive decision, interpretative decision.Abstract
The function of the Indonesian Constitutional Court as the guardian of the constitution is mainly conducted through the judicial review authority. From 2003 to April 2021, the Constitutional Court has received and decided 1392 petitions over judicial review. In its dictums, the Constitutional Court often declares conditionally constitutional or conditionally unconstitutional (conditional decision). The conditional decision is a decision of the Court that declares the reviewed norm conditionally constitutional or unconstitutional. The norm is constitutional if interpreted according to the Court interpretation, or the norm is unconstitutional if interpreted in specific ways. This research investigates the criteria of judicial review decisions that declare conditionally constitutional and conditionally unconstitutional according to the characteristics of norms of the law reviewed. The analysis was limited to the Court decisions from 2003 to 2017. The research result indicates that distinguishing characteristics of norms reviewed have no correlation with conditionally constitutional or conditionally unconstitutional options. Conditionally Constitutional Decision was used by the Court before replaced by Conditionally Unconstitutional Decision due to the weakness of decision implementation. For conditionally unconstitutional decisions are connected to the substance of the decision, creating a new norm that replaces, limit, or elaborate reviewed norm. The conditional decision is still required due to the following three aspects: enforcement of the supremacy of the constitution, the presumption of validity, and strengthening the execution of Constitutional Court decisions.
Downloads
References
Books
Asy’ari, Syukri, Meyrinda Rahmawaty Hilipito, dan Mohammad Mahrus Ali. Model dan Implementasi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam Pengujian Undang-Undang (Studi Putusan Tahun 2003 – 2012). (Kepaniteraan dan Sekretariat Jenderal Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia, 2013)
Bodenheimer, Edgar. Jurisprudence, The Philosophy and Method of the Law. (Cambridge University Press, 2011).
Brewer-Carias, Allan R. Constitutional Courts as Positive Legislators: A Comparative Law Study. (Cambridge University Press, 2011).
Campbell, Tom dan Jeffrey Goldsworthy (eds.). Judicial Power, Democracy and Legal Positivism. (Ashgate Dartmouth, 2000).
Choper, Jesse H. Judicial Review and the National Political Process, A Functional Reconsideration of the Role of the Supreme Court. (The University of Chicago Press, 1983).
Hart, H. L. A. The Concept of Law. Tenth impression. (Oxford University Press, 1979).
Kelsen, Hans. Pure Theory of Law. translation from the second (revised and enlarged). German edition. (University of California Press, 1976).
Martitah. Mahkamah Konstitusi, Dari Negative Legislature ke Positive Legislature? (Konpress, 2013).
Murphy, Walter F., C. Herman Pritchett, Lee Epstein, & Jack Knight. Court, Judges, & Politics, An Introduction to the Judicial Process. (Mc Graw Hill, 2006)
Rahardjo, Satjipto. Ilmu Hukum. (Citra Aditya Bakti, 2006).
Wignjosoebroto, Soetandyo. Hukum: Paradigma, Metode dan Dinamika Masalahnya. (Huma, 2000).
Wolfe, Christopher. The Rise of Modern Judicial Review, From Constitutional Interpretation to Judge-Made Law. (Basic Books, Inc., 1986).
Yamin, Muhammad. Naskah Persiapan Undang-Undang Dasar 1945. (Yayasan Prapanca, 1959).
Journals and Reports
Bisariyadi, ‘Legal Transplant and The Model of Constitutional Court Decision’, (2018) 5(1) PJIH
Butt, Simon, ‘The Indonesia Constitution Court: Reconfigurating Decentralization for Better or Worse?’, (2019) 14, Asian Journal of Comparative Law,147-174
Eddyono, Luthfi W. ‘Penyelesaian Sengketa Kewenangan Lembaga Negara Oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi.’ (2010) 7(3) Jurnal Konstitusi, pp. 1-48.
Hidayatulloh, Bagus A. ‘Politik Hukum Sistem Pemilu Legislatif dan Presiden Tahun 2009 dan 2014 dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi.’ (2014) 21(4, Oct) Jurnal Hukum Ius Quia Iustum, pp. 559-582
Luthfi Widagdo Eddyono, ‘The Constitutional Court and Consolidation of Democracy in Indonesia’ (2018) 15(1) Jurnal Konstitusi
Pramudya A. Oktavinanda, ‘Is The Conditionally Constitutional Doctrine Constitutional?’, (2018), Vol. 8, No. 1, Indonesia Law Review, 17-36
Qamar, Nurul. ‘Kewenangan Judicial Review Mahkamah Konstitusi’ (2012) 1(1) Jurnal Konstitusi, pp. 1-15.
Rahman, Faiz & Dian Agung Wicaksono. ‘Eksistensi dan Karakteristik Putusan Bersyarat Mahkamah Konstitusi’ (2013) 13(2) Jurnal Konstitusi
Rahman, Faiz. ‘Anomali Penerapan Klausul Bersyarat dalam Putusan Pengujian Undang- Undang terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar’ (2020) 17 Jurnal Konstitusi.
Sutiyoso, Bambang. ‘Pembentukan Mahkamah Konstitusi Sebagai Pelaku Kekuasaan Kehakiman Di Indonesia.’ (2010) 7(6) Jurnal Konstitusi, pp. 25-50.
Regulations
Indonesia Constitution 1945
Law Number 24 of 2003 on the Indonesian Constitutional Court amandement with Law Number 8 of 2011
Cases or Court Decisions
The Constitutional Court’s Decision Number 018-PUU-I-2003 concerning review of Law Number 45 of 1999 concerning the establishment of the Province of Central Irian Jaya, Province of West Irian Jaya, Paniai Regency, Mimika Regency, Puncak Jaya Regency, and Sorong city
The Constitutional Court’s Decision Number 002/PUU-II/2004 examining the use of the term ‘population’ in Article 1 point 7 and 8 of Law Number 12 of 2003 concerning General Election
The Constitutional Court decision Number 058-059-060-063/PUU-II/2004 concerning judicial review of Law Number 7 of 2004 on Water Resource (Water Resources Law).
The Constitutional Court’s Decision Number 008/PUU-III/2005
The Constitutional Court’s Decision Number 026/PUU-III/2005 concerning judicial review Law Number 13 of 2005 on State's Budget (State Budget Law).
The Constitutional Court’s Decision Number 14-17/PUU-V/2007
The Constitutional Court’s Decision Number 29/PUU-V/2007 reviewing Law concerning Cinematography
The Constitutional Court’s Decision Number 10/PUU-VI/2008 reviewing the absence of the provision concerning the requirement of domicile for the candidate members of Regional Representative Council (DPD)
The Constitutional Court’s Decision Number 54/PUU-VI/2008 concerning judicial review of Law Number 39 of 2007 on Customs
The Constitutional Court’s Decision Number 4/PUU-VII/2009
The Constitutional Court’s Decision Number 101/PUU-VII/2009 concerning review of Law Number 18 of 2003 concerning Advocates.
The CC’s Decision Number 127/PUU-VII/2009.
The CC’s Decision Number 2/PUU-IX/2011
The Constitutional Court’s Decision Number 19/PUU-IX/2011 concerning the review for provisions in termination of employment due to emergency circumstances in Law concerning Labour
The Constitutional Court’s Decision Number 48/PUU-IX/2011
The Constitutional Court’s Decision Number 38/PUU-XI/2013 concerning legal entities of private hospitals.
The Constitutional Court’s Decision Number 35/PUU-XI/2013, which reviews the authority of the House of Representative (DPR)
The Constitutional Court’s Decision Number 84/PUU-XI/2013 regarding time period for General Meeting of Shareholders (RUPS) in Law concerning Limited Liability Companies
The Constitutional Court’s Decision Number 135/PUU-XIII/2015
Internets
Arizona, Yance. Di Balik Putusan Konstitusional Bersyarat Mahkamah Konstitusi. https://yancearizona.net/2008/11/12/dibalik-konstitusionalitas-bersyarat-putusan-mahkamah-konstitusi/, 1/5/2018
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Brawijaya Law Journal : Journal of Legal Studies
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
