Menguji Ketangguhan Realisme: Kritik terhadap Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 14/PUU-XI/2013 Pasca Pemilu Serentak 2019

Titon Slamet Kurnia

Abstract


Artikel ini hendak menelaah Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 14/PUU-XI/2013 dikaitkan dengan hasil pemilu serentak 2019. Objek dari kritik yang hendak dilakukan adalah ketepatan dari penggunaan pendekatan realisme sebagai teori ajudikasi oleh MK dalam memutuskan konstitusionalitas Undang-Undang Nomor 42 Tahun 2008 tentang Pemilihan Presiden. Dapat disimpulkan bahwa, berdasarkan hasil pemilu serentak, putusan MK tidak berhasil dalam memperkuat presidensialisme di Indonesia melalui teori efek ekor jas, seperti harapan MK. Menanggapi kegagalan tersebut artikel ini menyarankan supaya penggunaan pendekatan realisme harus mengantisipasi falibilitasnya. Menanggapi isu yang lebih umum, artikel ini mengajukan usulan untuk perubahan konstitusi guna menata ulang mekanisme pengujian yudisial sesuai dengan model Kanada yang secara konseptual dikenal sebagai pengujian yudisial dengan finalitas legislatif. Rekomendasi tersebut bertujuan mengantisipasi kesalahan yudisial dalam interpretasi konstitusi seperti ditunjukkan oleh Putusan MK Nomor 14/PUU-XI/2013.

This article examines Constitutional Court Decision Number 14/PUU-XI/2013 following the simultaneous elections of 2019. The object is the correctness of the utilisation of realism as a theory of adjudication by the Court in deciding the constitutionality of Law Number 42 of 2008. It can be concluded that, the Court’s decision is false, i.e. it fails to strengthen presidential in Indonesia, as expected by the Court, according to coattail effect theory. Hence, responding to this failure, this article suggests a caveat that the utilisation of realism should anticipate its fallibility. Therefore, responding to the issue to be more general, this article also suggests a proposal for a constitutional amendment to restructure the judicial review mechanism in accordance with the Canadian model known as, conceptually, judicial review with legislative finality. The recommendation aims to anticipate judicial error in constitutional interpretation as shown by the Constitutional Court Decision Number 14/PUU-XI/2013.


Keywords


Kesalahan Yudisial; Pemilu Serentak; Realisme.

Full Text:

PDF

References


BUKU

Bencze, Mátyás, “Obstacles and Opportunities – Measuring the Quality of Judicial Reasoning” dalam Mátyás Bencze dan Gar Yein Ng, eds., How to Measure the Quality of Judicial Reasoning, Switzerland: Springer, 2018.

Bencze, Mátyás, dan Gar Yein Ng, “Measuring the Unmeasurable?” dalam Mátyás Bencze dan Gar Yein Ng (editors), How to Measure the Quality of Judicial Reasoning, Switzerland: Springer, 2018.

Bickel, Alexander M., The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics, New Haven-Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1986.

Bodenheimer, Edgar, Jurisprudence: The Philosophy and Method of the Law, Cambridge-Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, 1981.

Bruggink, J.J.H., Refleksi tentang Hukum, Bandung: Penerbit PT. Citra Aditya Bakti, 1999.

Feteris, Eveline T., Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation: A Survey of Theories on the Justification of Judicial Decisions, Dordrecht: Springer, 1999.

Friedrich, Carl J., The Philosophy of Law in Historical Perspective, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1969.

Golding, Martin P., “Discovery and Justification in Science and Law” dalam Aleksander Peczenik, et.al. (editors), Theory of Legal Science, Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1983.

Holmes, Oliver Wendell, The Common Law, Cambridge-Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2009.

Kuskridho Ambardi, “Rekayasa Pemilu Serentak, Perilaku Pemilih, dan Perilaku Elit” dalam Eko Agus Wibisono (editor), Refleksi Pemilu Serentak di Indonesia, Jakarta: Penerbit Bawaslu, 2019.

Kurnia, Titon Slamet, Interpretasi Hak-Hak Asasi Manusia oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia: The Jimly Court 2003-2008, Bandung: Penerbit CV. Mandar Maju, 2015.

Leiter, Brian, “American Legal Realism” dalam Dennis Patterson (editor), A Companion to Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory, London: Blackwell Publishing, 2010.

Lloyd, Lord of Hamstead dan M.D.A. Freeman, Lloyd’s Introduction to Jurisprudence, London: English Language Book Society/Stevens, 1985.

MacCormick, Neil, Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

_____, Rhetoric and the Rule of Law: A Theory of Legal Reasoning, 2005, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978.

Mainwaring, Scott, “Presidentialism, Multipartism and Democracy: The Difficult Combination” dalam Robert A. Dahl, et.al. (editors), The Democracy Sourcebook, Cambridge-Massachusetts, The MIT Press, 2003.

Marmor, Andrei, Interpretation and Legal Theory, London-Portland: Hart Publishing, 2005.

McCoubrey, Hilaire, dan Nigel D. White, Textbook on Jurisprudence, London: Blackstone Press Ltd., 1996.

McLeod, Ian, Legal Theory, London: Palgrave-MacMillan, 2003.

Osmola, Szymon, dan Wojciech Zaluski, “’Is’ and ‘Ought’ in Hume’s and Kant’s Philosophy” dalam Mortimer Sellers dan Stephan Kirste (editors), Encyclopedia of the Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy, Switzerland: Springer, 2017.

Paton, George Whitecross, dan David P. Derham, A Textbook of Jurisprudence, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972.

Tamanaha, Brian Z., Beyond Formalist – Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2010.

Tim Penyusun, Naskah Komprehensif Perubahan Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945: Latar Belakang, Proses dan Hasil Pembahasan 1999-2002: Buku VI Kekuasaan Kehakiman, Jakarta: Sekretariat Jenderal dan Kepaniteraan Mahkamah Konstitusi, 2010.

Wroblewski, Jerzy, “Paradigms of Justifying Legal Decisions” dalam Aleksander Peczenik, et.al. (editors), Theory of Legal Science, Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1983.

JURNAL

Balkin, Jack M., “Bush v. Gore and the Boundary between Law and Politics,” Yale Law Journal, Volume 110, Nomor 8, (2001): 1407-1458.

Barak, Aharon, “The Supreme Court 2001 Term – Foreword: A Judge on Judging: The Role of a Supreme Court in a Democracy,” Harvard Law Review, Volume 116, Nomor 1, (2002): 16-162.

Dahl, Robert A., “Decision-Making in a Democracy: The Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker,” Journal of Public Law, Volume 6, Nomor 2, (1957): 279-295.

Fuller, Lon L., “American Legal Realism” University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Volume 82, Nomor 5, (1934): 429-462.

Green, Michael Steven, “Legal Realism as Theory of Law,” William and Mary Law Review, Volume 46, Nomor 6, (2005): 1915-2000.

Heise, Michael, “Brown v. Board of Education, Footnote 11, and Mutidisciplinarity,” Cornell Law Review, Volume 90, Nomor 2, (2005): 279-320.

Holmes, Oliver Wendell, “The Path of the Law,” Harvard Law Review, Volume 110, Nomor 5, (1997): 991-1009.

Kurnia, Titon Slamet, “Prediktabilitas Ajudikasi Konstitusional: Mahkamah Konstitusi dan Pengujian Undang-Undang, Jurnal Konstitusi, Volume 13, Nomor 2, (2016): 259-277.

Kusnadi, Kuswanto, “Mahkamah Konstitusi dan Upaya Menegakkan Asas Presidensialisme di Indonesia,” Refleksi Hukum: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, Volume 5, Nomor 1, (2020): 1-20.

Leiter, Brian, “Legal Formalism and Legal Realism: What is the Issue?” Legal Theory, Volume 16, Nomor 2, (2010): 111-133.

Rich, William J., “Betrayal of the Children with Dolls: The Broken Promise of Constitutional Protection for Victims of Race Discrimination,” Cornell Law Review, Volume 90, Nomor 2, (2005): 419-441.

Siegel, Steven, “Race, Education, and the Equal Protection Clause in the 1990s: The Meaning of Brown v. Board of Education Re-Examined in Light of Milwaukee’s School of African-American Immersion,” Marquette Law Review, Volume 74, Nomor 3, (1991), 501-511.

Wisdom, John Minor, “Random Remarks on the Role of Social Science in the Judicial Decision-Making Process in School Desegregation Cases,” Law and Contemporary Problems, Volume 39, Nomor 1, (1975): 134-149.

LAIN-LAIN

Kahana, Tsvi, The Partnership Model of the Canadian Notwithstanding Mechanism: Failure and Hope, Doctor of Juridical Science Thesis, University of Toronto.,2000.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1915

Article Metrics

Abstract view : 198 times
PDF view : 77 times

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.