Peran Ahli Hukum dalam Persidangan Mahkamah Konstitusi

Bisariyadi Bisariyadi

Abstract


Mahkamah Konstitusi kerap membuka persidangan dengan agenda mendengar keterangan ahli hukum sebagai bagian dari pembuktian. Hal ini menjadi sebuah kelaziman yang dipraktekkan tanpa adanya kritisi. Keberadaan ahli hukum dalam sebuah forum yang dipimpin oleh majelis hakim yang dianggap memenuhi persyaratan akan penguasaan isu konstitusi dan ketatanegaraan, secara tersirat, berarti mempertanyakan kualifikasi dari hakim konstitusi itu sendiri. Tulisan ini bermaksud mencari tahu mengapa praktek mendengar keterangan ahli hukum dalam persidangan Mahkamah Konstitusi dilakukan. Selain itu, tulisan ini juga bermaksud untuk memberi masukan dalam hukum acara agar peran ahli hukum yang didengar keterangannya tidak memasuki ranah wewenang majelis hakim dalam menafsirkan konstitusi. Dalam rangka mencapai tujuan penulisan, pembahasan dalam tulisan ini dibagi dalam empat bagian yaitu (i) mengidentifikasi kriteria siapa yang disebut sebagai ahli; (ii) melihat kedudukan keterangan ahli sebagai alat bukti dan bagaimana majelis hakim menilai alat bukti tersebut; (iii) menelisik pengaruh keterangan ahli dalam pengambilan putusan oleh majelis hakim konstitusi dalam praktek selama ini, dan (iv) mengukur apakah keterangan ahli hukum masih dibutuhkan dalam proses persidangan di Mahkamah Konstitusi.      

The Constitutional Court has often heard the opinion of legal experts as part of the examination of evidence. This is a common practice that was taken for granted. The very notion of having legal experts opinion in a forum led by judges who considered tohave  meet the qualification to be an experts in constitutional law is implicitly, means questioning the experties of the constitutional judges itselves. This paper intends to find out why the practice of hearing the legal experts opinion in the trial of the Constitutional Court still occurs. In addition, this paper also intends to provide input in the procedural law so that the role of legal experts does not enter the domain of the judges in interpreting the constitution. In order to achieve the objectives, the discussion in this paper is divided into four parts, (i) identifying the criteria of who is qualified as an expert; (ii) assess  the position of expert's opinion as evidence and how the panel of judges evaluate the evidence; (iii) examine the influence of expert opinion in decision making, and (iv) measure whether legal experts opinion is still necessary in the trial of the Constitutional Court.


Keywords


Mahkamah Konstitusi; Keterangan Ahli; Fakta Konstitusional.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Artikel Jurnal

Alemanno, Alberto. “The Emergence of the Evidence-based Judicial Reflex: A Response to Bar-Siman-Tov’s Semiprocedural Review” The Theory and Practice of Legislation 1, No. 2 (2013): 327-340

Allen, Ronald J. dan Pardo, Michael S. “The Myth of the Law-Fact Distinction”. Northwestern University Law Review 97, no. 4 (Juni 2003): 1769-1807. ;

----------------------, “Facts in Law and Facts of Law”, the International Journal of Evidence and Proof 7 (Juli 2003): 153-171. https://doi.org/10.1177/136571270300700301

Bar-Siman-Tov, Ittai. “The Dual Meaning Of Evidence-Based Judicial Review Of Legislation”, The Theory and Practice of Legislation 4, no. 2 (2016): 107-133. https://doi.org/10.1080/20508840.2016.1249679

Bedner, Adriaan. “Indonesian Legal Scholarship And Jurisprudence As An Obstacle For Transplanting Legal Institutions”. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law 3, no. 2 (September 2013): 253-273. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1876404512001145

Beltran, Jordi Ferrer. “Evidential Powers of the Judges and the Procedural Models”, Cuadernos Electrónicos de Filosofía del Derecho, 36 (2017): 97-104

Davis, Kenneth C. “An Approach to Problems of Evidence in the Administrative Process” Harvard Law Review 55, no. 3 (Januari 1942): 364-425. DOI: 10.2307/1335092

----------------------. “Judicial Notice” Columbia Law Review 55, no. 7 (November 1955): 945-984. DOI: 10.2307/1119390

Drummond, Susan G. “Judicial Notice: the Very Texture of Legal Reasoning”, Canadian Journal of Law and Society 15, no. 1 (2000): 1-38

Hogg, Peter W., “Proof of Facts in Constitutional Cases”, The University of Toronto Law Journal 26, No. 4 (Autumn, 1976): 386-408. DOI: 10.2307/825548

Karst, Kenneth L. “Legislative Facts in Constitutional Litigation”, The Supreme Court Review, 1960 (1960): 77-112

Martire, Kristy A. dan Edmond, Gary. “Rethinking Expert Opinion Evidence”, Melbourne University Law Review 40 (2016): 967 - 998

Morgan, Edmund M. “Judicial Notice”, Harvard Law Review 57, no. 3 (Januari 1944): 269-294. DOI: 10.2307/1335109

Oteri, Joseph S. dan Noriss, Lawrence H., “The Use of Expert and Documentary Evidence in a Constitutional Attack on a State Criminal Statute: The Marijuana Test Case”, California Law Review 56 (1968): 29-36. DOI: 10.2307/3479494

Petersen, Niels. “Avoiding the Common- Wisdom Fallacy: The Role of Social Sciences in Constitutional Adjudication” International Journal of Constitutional Law 11 (2013): 294–318. doi:10.1093/icon/mot008

Posner, Richard A., “Against Constitutional Theory” New York University Law Review 73 no. 1 (1998): 1-22

Saks, Michael J. dan Faigman, David L. “Expert Evidence After Daubert”, Annual Review of Law and Social Science 1, (Desember 2005): 105–130. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.1.041604.115907

Scheppele, Kim Lane, “Facing Facts in Legal Interpretation” Representations 30 (Spring 1990): 42-77. DOI: 10.2307/2928446

Sherlock, Ann. “Facts, Evidence and Opinion in Constitutional Litigation: The Experience in Ireland”, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 40, no. 2 (April 1991): 425-437

Spencer, J. R. , “Court Experts and Expert Witnesses: Have We a Lesson to Learn from the French?” Current Legal Problems 45, No. 2, (January 1992): 213-236. https://doi.org/10.1093/clp/45.Part_2.213

Strauss, David A. "What is Constitutional Theory?”, California Law Review 87 (1999): 581-592. DOI: 10.2307/3481028

Thayer, James B. “Judicial Notice and the Law of Evidence”, Harvard Law Review 3, no. 7 (Februari 1890): 285-312.

Buku, Buku (dengan editor) dan Disertasi

A. Muhammad Asrun dan Hendra Nurtjahjo, eds. 70 tahun Prof. Dr. Harun Alrasid : Integritas, Konsistensi Seorang Sarjana Hukum. Jakarta: Pusat Studi Hukum Tata Negara FHUI. 2000.

Faigman,David L. Constitutional Fictions: A Unified Theory of Constitutional Facts. New York: Oxford University Press. 2008

Jasanoff, Sheila. Science at the Bar. Law, Science and Technology in America. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995.

Hock Lai, Ho. A Philosophy of Evidence Law: Justice in the Search for Truth. Oxford: OUP. 2008

Nardi, Jr, Dominic J. “Embedded Judicial Autonomy: How NGOs and Public Opinion Influence Indonesia’s Constitutional Court”. Disertasi. The University of Michigan. 2018

Internet

Arnold, Erik dan Soriano, Errol. “The Recent Evolution of Expert Evidence in Selected Common Law Jurisdictions Around The World: A Commissioned study for the Canadian Institute of Chartered Business Valuators”. (Campbell Valuation Partners Limited, 2013). https://cicbv.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/2012-CICBV-Research-Paper-CVPL-FINAL.pdf (diakses pada 5 Oktober 2018).

Beritasatu. “Bambang Minta Saksi Sampaikan Keterangan Palsu di Sidang MK”. Jumat 23 Januari 2015. http://www.beritasatu.com/hukum/243006-bambang-minta-saksi-sampaikan-keterangan-palsu-di-sidang-mk.html, (diakses pada 9 Oktober 2018)

Kompas, “Ratna Mutiara, Potret Kriminalisasi Saksi”, Kompas.com 27 Januari 2015, https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2015/01/27/14000051/Ratna.Mutiara.Potret.Kriminalisasi.Saksi, (diakses pada 10 Oktober 2018)

Leclerc. Olivier. “Scientific Expertise and Judicial Decision Making: Comparative Insights”. dalam Politics, and Morality: European Perspectives III. Ethics and Social Justice, Law. eds J. Ferrer Beltrán dan S. Pozzolo,(Duncker und Humblot, 2007). https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00337694/document (diakses pada 3 Oktober 2018)

Lefkopoulou, Nefeli. “Evidential Powers of the Constitutional Judge: Procedural Design and Finalities of the Trial, All Roads Lead to Rome?”, http://www.catedradeculturajuridica.com/biblioteca/items/1562_A/Nefeli_Lefkopoulou.pdf. (diakses pada 8 Oktober 2018)

Turner, Barry. “Civil Judicial Experts in Cross-Border Litigation: The Common Law Perspective”. (Directorate General For Internal Policies European Parliament, 2015). http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2015/519212/IPOL_ IDA (2015)519212_EN.pdf (diakses pada 3 Oktober 2018)

Williams, G. N. “Expert Evidence: A Judge's Assessment”. (Makalah yang dipresentasikan pada the Australian Institute of Quantity Surveyors Expert Witness Workshop pada 21 Juli 2001) http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/QldJSchol/2001/38.pdf (diakses pada 5 Oktober 2018)

Putusan Pengadilan dan Peraturan Perundang-Undangan

Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 001-021-022/PUU-I/2003

Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 28/PHPU.D-VI/2008

Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 4/PUU-VII/2009

Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 108-109/PHPU.B-XVII/2009

Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 45/PHPU-D.VIII/2010

Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 42/PUU-XIII/2015

Undang-Undang Nomor 24 Tahun 2003 tentang Mahkamah Konstitusi (sebagaimana telah diubah dengan UU Nomor 8 Tahun 2011)

Peraturan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor : 06/PMK/2005 Tentang Pedoman Beracara Dalam Perkara Pengujian Undang-Undang

Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Pusat Nomor 02197/PID.B/2010/PN. JKT.PST tertanggal 22 Desember 2010.

Putusan Mahkamah Agung Australia dalam kasus Breen v. Sneddon [106 C.L.R. 406 (1961)]

Putusan Mahkamah Agung Amerika Serikat dalam Kasus Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., [509 U.S. 579 (1993)]

Putusan Mahkamah Agung Amerika Serikat dalam Kasus Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, [347 U.S. 483 (1954)]

Putusan Suffolk Superior Court, Commonwealth of Massachusets, dalam Kasus Commonwealth v. Ivan Weiss and Joseph Leis, No. 28841-2, 28844-5, 28864-5 (1968)




DOI: https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1644

Article Metrics

Abstract view : 0 times
PDF view : 0 times

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.