Constitutional Compliance Atas Putusan Pengujian Undang-Undang di Mahkamah Konstitusi oleh Adressat Putusan


  • Tri Sulistyowati
  • Muhammad Imam Nasef
  • Ali Rido



Adressat, Compliance, Decision, Constitutional Court, Judicial Review


Theoretically and conceptually the final decision means that the Constitutional Court’s decision is the first resort as well as the last resort for justice seekers. If it is related in the context of upholding the supremacy of the constitution, it certainly does not only stop at the cancellation of a norm of law that is contrary to the constitution, but rather how the decision on annulment is then obeyed and implemented. That is because the nature of the final MK decision. However, in the recent constitutional issues, compliance by state institutions in implementing the Constitutional Court’s decision becomes a problem because there are indications of non-compliance to follow up on the final and binding Constitutional Court’s decision. Based on this, the formulation of the problem to be answered in this study is how the level of compliance with the implementation of the judicial review decision in the Constitutional Court for the period 2013-2018. The research is a juridical normative research, with the main data source, namely secondary data, data analysis using analysis Qualitative and approach methods use the statute approach and conceptual approach. The results of this study indicate that there are three categories of levels of compliance with the implementation of the 2013-2018 PUU MK ruling, namely: full compliance; partially obeyed and not obeyed. The results of the study of the authors show that the majority of MK PUU decisions were complied with totaling 59 decisions or 54.12%. However, there are also some decisions that are not obeyed in whole or in other words only partially complied with as many as 6 decisions or equal to 5.50%. Whereas the decisions that were not complied with amounted to 24 decisions or 22.01%. The remaining 20 decisions, or 18.34%, have yet to be identified in terms of compliance because of two things, namely: 1) the constitutionality period given by the Constitutional Court in its decision has not been exceeded, meaning that the legislators still have time / opportunity to follow up; 2) there has been no follow-up at all from the adressat of the decision both normatively and praxis. Thus it can be concluded that the level of compliance with PUU MK decisions for the period 2013 - 2018 is still higher than the level of non-compliance with a ratio of 54.12% compared to 22.01%.


Aziz, Machfud, 2010, Pengujian Peraturan Perundang-Undangan dalam Sistem
Peraturan Perundang-Undangan Indonesia, Jakarta: Sekertariat Jenderal &
Kepaniteraan Mahkamah Konstitusi.
Asshiddiqie, Jimly, 2005, Model-Model Pengujian Konstitusional di Berbagai Negara,
Jakarta: Konpress.
_______________, 2009, Menuju Negara Hukum yang Demokratis, Jakarta: Bhuana Ilmu.
_______________, 2012, Perkembangan & Konsolidasi Lembaga Negara Pasca Reformasi,
Edisi Kedua, Cetakan Kedua, Jakarta: Sinar Grafika.
Bachar, Djazuli, 1987, Eksekusi Putusan Perkara Perdata Segi Hukum dan Penegakan
Hukum, Jakarta; Akademika Pressindo.
Faqih, Mariyadi, 2010, Nilai-Nilai Filosofi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi yang
Final dan Mengikat, Jakarta: Sekertariat Jenderal & Kepaniteraan Mahkamah
Huda, Ni’matul, 2018, Kekuatan Eksekutorial Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi,
Yogyakarta: FH UII Press.
Kelsen, Hans, 1973, General Theory of Law and State, New York: Russel & Russel.
Lijphart, Arend, 1999, Patterns of Democracy Government Foruns and Performance
in Thirty Six Countries, London: Yale University.
Mulyadi, Lilik, 2002, Hukum Acara Perdata Menurut Teori dan Praktik Peradilan
Indonesia, Jakarta: Djambatan.
Samosir, Djamanat, 2011, Hukum Acara Perdata: Tahap-Tahap Penyelesaian Perkara
Perdata, Bandung: Nuansa Aulia.
Siahaan, Maruarar, 2005, Hukum Acara Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia,
Cetakan Pertama, Jakarta: Konstitusi Press.
Sutiyoso, Bambang, 2006, Hukum Acara Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia,
Cetakan Pertama, Bandung: PT. Citra Aditya Bakti.
Tocqueville, Alexis de, 1956, Democracy in America, Specially Edited and Abridge
for the Modern Reader by Richard D. Heffner, New York: A Mentor Book
Published by The New American Library.
Jurnal, Makalah dan Hasil Penelitian
Ali, Mohammad Mahrus, dkk, Tindak Lanjut Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi yang
Bersifat Konstitusional Bersyarat Serta Memuat Norma Baru, Jurnal Konstitusi,
Vol. 12, Nomor 3, September 2015.
Asy’ary, Syukri, dkk., Model dan Implementasi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam
Pengujian Undang-Undang (Studi Putusan Tahun 2003-2012), Jurnal Konstitusi,
Vol. 10, No. 4. Desember 2013.
Isra, Saldi, Titik Singgung Wewenang Mahkamah Agung dengan Mahkamah
Konstitusi, Makalah disampaikan dalam Seminar “Titik Singgung Wewenang
antara Mahkamah Agung dan Mahkamah Konstitusi”, diadakah oleh Badan
Litbang Diklat Hukum dan Peradilan Mahkamah Agung, Jakarta, 13 November
Marzuki, H.M. Laica., Membangun Undang-Undang Yang Ideal, Jurnal Legislasi
Indonesia, Vol. 4, No. 2, Juni 2007.
Siahaan, Maruarar, Peran Mahkamah Konstitusi Dalam Penegakan Hukum Konstitusi, Jurnal Hukum No. 3 Vol. 16, Juli 2009.
Internet/Media Online
Isra, Saldi, Negative Legislator, dalam
makalah/makalah1/302-negative-legislator.html. Akses 1 September 2019.
Rekapitulasi Perkara Pengujian Undang-Undang, lihat dalam
index.php?page=web.RekapPUU&menu=4, terkahir diakses pada tanggal 26 Maret 2019.




How to Cite

Sulistyowati, Tri, Muhammad Imam Nasef, and Ali Rido. 2021. “Constitutional Compliance Atas Putusan Pengujian Undang-Undang Di Mahkamah Konstitusi Oleh Adressat Putusan”. Jurnal Konstitusi 17 (4):699-728.