Prinsip Proporsionalitas dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi (Studi Perbandingan di Indonesia dan Jerman)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1829Keywords:
the Constitutional Rights, Constitutional Court, the Principle of ProportionalityAbstract
The judicial review of UUD 1945 is the authority of the Constitutional Court declared by Article 24C UUD NRI 1945. One of the reasons for judicial review is competiting rights or the constitutional rights of citizens who have been violated through existing laws, so there needs to be an examination of the law these laws. It is also known that some of the judges’ decisions in competiting rights cases only use the interpretation of the constitution without considering the impairment of rights delivered by the applicant in the examination. Thus resulting in a decision stating that the law does not conflict with the constitution. This hurts citizens who feel their rights have been violated. A balance is needed between the public interest and the constitutional rights of citizens. The counterweight can use the principle of proportionality. The principle of proportionality is needed by the constitutional judge in his consideration when faced with a case of competiting rights. But unfortunately, this principle is not always used when faced with competiting rights, and the principle was not developed by Constitutional Court judges. In this paper the problem to be answered is first the history of the principle of proportionality, secondly the comparison of the use of the principle of proportionality in constitutional justice in Germany and Indonesia. The problem was answered using normative legal research methods. The main material is the decision of the Constitutional Court and supporting materials in the form of books and journals. The conclusion in this paper is the need to use the principle of proportionality in dealing with competiting rights cases in the Constitutional Court. So it is necessary to immediately develop the principle of proportionality and its parameters.
References
Buku
M. Ali Safa’at, et.al, 2019, Hukum Acara Mahkamah Konstitusi, Cetakan 2, Jakarta : Kepaniteraan dan Sekretariat Jenderal Mahkamah Konstitusi.
Jurnal
Sweet, Alec Stone, et.al, 2008 ,“Proportionality Balancing and Global Constitutionalism”, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, Vol. 47, No.73, h. 105.
Schlink, Bernhard, 2012, “Proportionality In Constitutional Law: Why Everywhere But Here?”, Duke Journal Of Comparative Law And International Law, Vol. 22, No. 29, h. 302.
Bisariyadi, 2018, “Penerapan Uji Proporsionalitas dalam Kasus Pembubaran Partai Politik : Sebuah Perbandingan”, Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan, Vol. 48, No. 1, Januari-Maret, h. 89.
Grimm, Dieter, 2007, “Proportionality in Canadian and German Constitutional Jurisprudence”, University of Toronto Law Journal, Vol. 57, No. 2, h. 385.
Mattila, Heikki ES, 2011, “Cross-References in Court Decisions: A Study in Comparative Legal Linguistics”, dalam Tarja Salmi-Tolonen, Iris Tukianen dan Richard Foley (eds), “Law and Language in Partnership and Conflict”, Lapland Law Review (Special Issue) , Vol. 1, No. 1, h. 98.
M. Laica Marzuki, 2004, “Judicial Review di Mahkamah Konstitusi”, Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia, Vol. 1, No. 3, November, h. 3.
Alexy, Robert, 2014, “Constitutional Rights, Democracy, and Representation”, Ricerche, Giuridiche, Vol. 3 No. 3, Desember, h. 199.
Laporan Penelitian dan Dokumen Lainnya
Bisariyadi, et.al, “Penafsiran Konstitusi dalam Pengujian Undang-Undang terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar”, Laporan Hasil Penelitian, Jakarta : Kepaniteraan dan Sekretariat Jenderal Mahkamah Konstitusi RI, h. 28-29.
Dewan Ekonomi dan Sosial PBB, Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, UN Doc E/CN 4/1984/4, tahun 1984, Bagian Lampiran.
General Comment Komisi Hak Asasi Manusia PBB, No 10 tahun 1983, para. 8; General Comment Komisi Hak Asasi Manusia PBB No 22, tahun 1992, para. 8.
Putusan Pengadilan
Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 006/PUU-I/2003, perihal pengujian Undang-Undang Nomor 30 tahun 2002 tentang Komisi Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia 1945.
Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 14-17/PUU-V/2007, perihal pengujian Undang-Undang Nomor 32 Tahun 2004 tentang Pemerintahan Daerah terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945.
Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 19 /PUU-V/2007, perihal pengujian Undang-Undang Nomor 30 tahun 2002 tentang Komisi Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia 1945.
Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 52/PUU-X/2012, perihal pengujian Undang-Undang Nomor 8 tahun 2012 tentang Pemilihan Umum Anggota Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat, Dewan Perwakilan Daerah, dan Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia 1945.
Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 9/PUU-VIII/2009, perihal pengujian Undang-Undang Nomor 10 tahun 2008 tentang Pemilihan Umum Anggota Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat, Dewan Perwakilan Daerah dan Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Repubik Indonesia 1945, paragraf [3.23].
Internet
Mahkamah Konstitusi, “Rekapitulasi Putusan”, https://mkri.id/index.php?page=web.RekapPHPU&menu=4, diunduh 23 April 2020 15.25.
M. Ali Safa’at, et.al, 2019, Hukum Acara Mahkamah Konstitusi, Cetakan 2, Jakarta : Kepaniteraan dan Sekretariat Jenderal Mahkamah Konstitusi.
Jurnal
Sweet, Alec Stone, et.al, 2008 ,“Proportionality Balancing and Global Constitutionalism”, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, Vol. 47, No.73, h. 105.
Schlink, Bernhard, 2012, “Proportionality In Constitutional Law: Why Everywhere But Here?”, Duke Journal Of Comparative Law And International Law, Vol. 22, No. 29, h. 302.
Bisariyadi, 2018, “Penerapan Uji Proporsionalitas dalam Kasus Pembubaran Partai Politik : Sebuah Perbandingan”, Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan, Vol. 48, No. 1, Januari-Maret, h. 89.
Grimm, Dieter, 2007, “Proportionality in Canadian and German Constitutional Jurisprudence”, University of Toronto Law Journal, Vol. 57, No. 2, h. 385.
Mattila, Heikki ES, 2011, “Cross-References in Court Decisions: A Study in Comparative Legal Linguistics”, dalam Tarja Salmi-Tolonen, Iris Tukianen dan Richard Foley (eds), “Law and Language in Partnership and Conflict”, Lapland Law Review (Special Issue) , Vol. 1, No. 1, h. 98.
M. Laica Marzuki, 2004, “Judicial Review di Mahkamah Konstitusi”, Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia, Vol. 1, No. 3, November, h. 3.
Alexy, Robert, 2014, “Constitutional Rights, Democracy, and Representation”, Ricerche, Giuridiche, Vol. 3 No. 3, Desember, h. 199.
Laporan Penelitian dan Dokumen Lainnya
Bisariyadi, et.al, “Penafsiran Konstitusi dalam Pengujian Undang-Undang terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar”, Laporan Hasil Penelitian, Jakarta : Kepaniteraan dan Sekretariat Jenderal Mahkamah Konstitusi RI, h. 28-29.
Dewan Ekonomi dan Sosial PBB, Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, UN Doc E/CN 4/1984/4, tahun 1984, Bagian Lampiran.
General Comment Komisi Hak Asasi Manusia PBB, No 10 tahun 1983, para. 8; General Comment Komisi Hak Asasi Manusia PBB No 22, tahun 1992, para. 8.
Putusan Pengadilan
Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 006/PUU-I/2003, perihal pengujian Undang-Undang Nomor 30 tahun 2002 tentang Komisi Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia 1945.
Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 14-17/PUU-V/2007, perihal pengujian Undang-Undang Nomor 32 Tahun 2004 tentang Pemerintahan Daerah terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945.
Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 19 /PUU-V/2007, perihal pengujian Undang-Undang Nomor 30 tahun 2002 tentang Komisi Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia 1945.
Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 52/PUU-X/2012, perihal pengujian Undang-Undang Nomor 8 tahun 2012 tentang Pemilihan Umum Anggota Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat, Dewan Perwakilan Daerah, dan Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia 1945.
Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 9/PUU-VIII/2009, perihal pengujian Undang-Undang Nomor 10 tahun 2008 tentang Pemilihan Umum Anggota Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat, Dewan Perwakilan Daerah dan Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Repubik Indonesia 1945, paragraf [3.23].
Internet
Mahkamah Konstitusi, “Rekapitulasi Putusan”, https://mkri.id/index.php?page=web.RekapPHPU&menu=4, diunduh 23 April 2020 15.25.
Downloads
Published
2021-11-15
How to Cite
Rugian, Irene Angelita. 2021. “Prinsip Proporsionalitas Dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi (Studi Perbandingan Di Indonesia Dan Jerman)”. Jurnal Konstitusi 18 (2):461-79. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1829.
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.
