Judicial Consistency dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi tentang Pengujian Undang-Undang Penodaan Agama
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1714Keywords:
, precedent, stare decicis, consistency, ratio decidendi, blasphemy lawAbstract
This paper will discuss the consistency of the constitutional court decision in the judicial review cases based on the principle of precedent. MK several times deemed inconsistent because often issued a ruling that is overruling. However, there were actually a lot of MK decisions that consistently followed the precedent. Although the use of the precedent principle is only known in common law tradition, the Constitutional Court apparently also applies it. The Constitutional Court’s decision regarding the Blasphemy Prevention Act was one form of the principle of precedent in the Constitutional Court. This decision consistently states that the Blasphemy Prevention Act remains constitutional because a legal vacuum will occur if the Blasphemy Prevention Law was decided to be unconstitutional. In this case, the Court retained its ratio decidendi to the constitutionality of the Blasphemy Prevention Law, even though the Court was aware that the Law contained many weaknesses. The consistency of the Constitutional Court on the judicial review of the Blasphemy Prevention Act is one form of the practice of precedent doctrine.
References
Buku
Amos, Abraham H. F., 2007, Legal Opinion Teoritis & Empirisme. Jakarta: PT Grafindo Persada.
Cruz, Peter De, 1999, Comparative Law in Changing The World, London/Sydney: Cavendish Publishing Ltd.
Dainow, Joseph (Ed.), 1974, The role of judicial decisions and doctrine in civil law and mixed jurisdictions, Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press.
Garner, Bryan A., 2016, Black's Law Dictionary 10th Edition. St. Paul-New York: West Group.
Marzuki, Peter Mahmud, 2014, Penelitian Hukum, Edisi Revisi, Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media Group.
Mertokusumo, Sudikno, 2009, Penemuan Hukum Sebuah Pengantar, Yogyakarta: Liberty.
Pompe, Sebastiaan, 2012, Runtuhnya Institusi Mahkamah Agung, Jakarta: Lembaga Kajian dan Advokasi untuk Independensi Peradilan.
Radbruch, Gustav, 1973, Rechtsphilosophie, Stuttgart: K.F. Koehler Verlag.
Scalia, Antonin, 1997, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and The Law, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Jurnal
Aditya, Zaka Firma dan Al-Fatih, Sholahuddin, “State Liability for Violation of Constitutional Rights Againts Indegenous People in Freedom of Religion and Belief”, Brawijaya Law Journal, 4(1), 2017, h. 29-58.
Black, H. Campbell, “The Principle of Stare Decisis," The American Law Register, Volume 34, 1886, h. 745-757.
Brewbaker, Willian S., “Found Law, Made Law and Creation: Reconsidering Blackstone’s Declaratory Theory”, Journal of Law and Religion, XXII (255), 2006/2007.
Farber, Daniel A., “The rule of Law and The Law and Precedents”, Barkeley Law Review, University of Barkeley, 2005, h. 1173-1203.
Fon, Vincy & Farisi, Francesco, “Judicial Precedent in Civil Law Systems: A Dynamic analysis”, International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, Volume 26, 2006, h. 519–535.
Goodhart, Arthur L., “Determining The Ratio Decidendi of a case”, Yale Law Journal, Vol. XL( 2), December 1930, h. 161-185.
Gustavo, Fernandes de Andrade, Comparative Constitutional Law: Judicial Review, university of Pennsylvania of constitutional law, 2001, h. 977-999.
Hondies, Ewoud, “Precedent in East and West”, Pennsylvania State International Law Review, 523 (23), 2005.
Tesis
Aditya, Zaka Firma, Putusan Judicial Review Mahkamah Konstitusi yang Bersifat Retroaktif dan Akibat Hukumnya, Tesis, Universitas Airlangga, 2017.
Putusan Pengadilan
Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 140/PUU-VII/2009 tentang Pengujian Undang-Undang Nomor 1/PNPS/1965 tentang Pencegahan Penyalahgunaan dan/atau Penodaan Agama Terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945.
Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 84/PUU-X/2012 tentang Pengujian Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana dan Undang-Undang Nomor 1/PNPS/1965 tentang Pencegahan Penyalahgunaan dan/atau Penodaan Agama Terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945.
Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 56/PUU-XV/2017 tentang Pengujian Undang-Undang Nomor 1/PNPS/1965 tentang Pencegahan Penyalahgunaan dan/atau Penodaan Agama Terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945.
Undang-Undang
Undang-Undang Nomor 1/PNPS/1965 tentang Pencegahan Penyalahgunaan dan/atau Penodaan Agama
Amos, Abraham H. F., 2007, Legal Opinion Teoritis & Empirisme. Jakarta: PT Grafindo Persada.
Cruz, Peter De, 1999, Comparative Law in Changing The World, London/Sydney: Cavendish Publishing Ltd.
Dainow, Joseph (Ed.), 1974, The role of judicial decisions and doctrine in civil law and mixed jurisdictions, Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press.
Garner, Bryan A., 2016, Black's Law Dictionary 10th Edition. St. Paul-New York: West Group.
Marzuki, Peter Mahmud, 2014, Penelitian Hukum, Edisi Revisi, Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media Group.
Mertokusumo, Sudikno, 2009, Penemuan Hukum Sebuah Pengantar, Yogyakarta: Liberty.
Pompe, Sebastiaan, 2012, Runtuhnya Institusi Mahkamah Agung, Jakarta: Lembaga Kajian dan Advokasi untuk Independensi Peradilan.
Radbruch, Gustav, 1973, Rechtsphilosophie, Stuttgart: K.F. Koehler Verlag.
Scalia, Antonin, 1997, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and The Law, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Jurnal
Aditya, Zaka Firma dan Al-Fatih, Sholahuddin, “State Liability for Violation of Constitutional Rights Againts Indegenous People in Freedom of Religion and Belief”, Brawijaya Law Journal, 4(1), 2017, h. 29-58.
Black, H. Campbell, “The Principle of Stare Decisis," The American Law Register, Volume 34, 1886, h. 745-757.
Brewbaker, Willian S., “Found Law, Made Law and Creation: Reconsidering Blackstone’s Declaratory Theory”, Journal of Law and Religion, XXII (255), 2006/2007.
Farber, Daniel A., “The rule of Law and The Law and Precedents”, Barkeley Law Review, University of Barkeley, 2005, h. 1173-1203.
Fon, Vincy & Farisi, Francesco, “Judicial Precedent in Civil Law Systems: A Dynamic analysis”, International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, Volume 26, 2006, h. 519–535.
Goodhart, Arthur L., “Determining The Ratio Decidendi of a case”, Yale Law Journal, Vol. XL( 2), December 1930, h. 161-185.
Gustavo, Fernandes de Andrade, Comparative Constitutional Law: Judicial Review, university of Pennsylvania of constitutional law, 2001, h. 977-999.
Hondies, Ewoud, “Precedent in East and West”, Pennsylvania State International Law Review, 523 (23), 2005.
Tesis
Aditya, Zaka Firma, Putusan Judicial Review Mahkamah Konstitusi yang Bersifat Retroaktif dan Akibat Hukumnya, Tesis, Universitas Airlangga, 2017.
Putusan Pengadilan
Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 140/PUU-VII/2009 tentang Pengujian Undang-Undang Nomor 1/PNPS/1965 tentang Pencegahan Penyalahgunaan dan/atau Penodaan Agama Terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945.
Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 84/PUU-X/2012 tentang Pengujian Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana dan Undang-Undang Nomor 1/PNPS/1965 tentang Pencegahan Penyalahgunaan dan/atau Penodaan Agama Terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945.
Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 56/PUU-XV/2017 tentang Pengujian Undang-Undang Nomor 1/PNPS/1965 tentang Pencegahan Penyalahgunaan dan/atau Penodaan Agama Terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945.
Undang-Undang
Undang-Undang Nomor 1/PNPS/1965 tentang Pencegahan Penyalahgunaan dan/atau Penodaan Agama
Downloads
Published
2020-05-06
How to Cite
Aditya, Zaka Firma. 2020. “Judicial Consistency Dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Tentang Pengujian Undang-Undang Penodaan Agama”. Jurnal Konstitusi 17 (1):080-103. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1714.
Issue
Section
Articles
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Copyright of the published articles will be transferred to the journal as the publisher of the manuscripts. Therefore, the author confirms that the copyright has been managed by the publisher.
- The publisher of Jurnal Konstitusi is The Registrar and Secretariat General of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia.
- The copyright follows Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License: This license allows reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format for noncommercial purposes only, and only so long as attribution is given to the creator. If you remix, adapt, or build upon the material, you must license the modified material under identical terms.
