Penelusuran Ide Proportionality dalam Pasal 28J(2) UUD NRI Tahun 1945: Tracing the Proportionality in Article 28J(2) UUD NRI Tahun 1945

Muhamad Dzadit Taqwa

doi:10.31078/jk2234

Authors

Muhamad Dzadit Taqwa Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, Jakarta https://orcid.org/0009-0002-7021-6723

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31078/jk2234

Keywords:

Human Rights, Interpretation, Just Requirement, Limitations, Proportionality

Abstract

This article asks whether Article 28J(2) of the 1945 Constitution embeds the idea and test of proportionality. Using a doctrinal method, it combines semantic analysis of “just requirements,” a review of the amendment travaux, comparative references (Germany’s structured proportionality; Canada and South Africa), and close readings of key Constitutional Court decisions. The study finds, first, that the framers’ understanding of “just requirements” does not reflect the German-style proportionality structure; instead, it is drafted and later read as a call to balance individual rights with collective interests. Second, Article 28J(2) positions individuals—not the legislature—as the primary addressees of the limitation clause, weakening its function as a constitutional check on rights-restricting statutes. Third, the Court’s case law sporadically employs unstructured balancing but has not developed a disciplined, multi-step proportionality test. Normatively, the article argues that introducing a structured proportionality analysis would provide a clearer burden on lawmakers and a more predictable judicial framework, thereby counterbalancing the Constitution’s relatively weak design for rights protection.

References

Ackerman, Bruce. “The Rise of World Constitutionalism.” Virginia Law Review 83, no. 4 (1997): 771–97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1073748

Albertyn, Catherine. “(In)Equality and the South African Constitution.” Development Southern Africa 36, no. 6 (November 2, 2019): 751–66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2019.1660860

Alexy, Robert. “Constitutional Rights and Proportionality.” Revus: Journal for Constitutional Theory and Philosophy of Law 22 (2014): 51–65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/revus.2783

Badan Pengembangan dan Pembinaan Bahasa. “menuntut.” KBBI Daring. 2016.

Barak, Aharon. Proportionality: Constitutional Rights and Their Limitations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139035293

Bernal, Carlos. “The Migration of Proportionality to Australia.” Federal Law Review 48, no. 2 (June 1, 2020): 288–91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205X20906034

Canada. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In Constitution Act, 1982. (Text as enacted 1982).

Carter, Anne. “Bridging the Divide? Proportionality and Calibrated Scrutiny.” Federal Law Review 48, no. 2 (June 1, 2020): 282–85. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205X20906622

Choudhry, Sujit. “Globalization in Search of Justification: Toward a Theory of Comparative Constitutional Interpretation.” Indiana Law Journal 74, no. 3 (1999): 819–92.

Cohen-Eliya, Moshe, and Iddo Porat. “American Balancing and German Proportionality: The Historical Origins.” International Journal of Constitutional Law 8, no. 2 (April 2010): 263–86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moq004

Comella, Víctor Ferreres. “Beyond the Principle of Proportionality.” In Comparative Constitutional Theory, edited by Gary Jacobsohn and Miguel Schor, 229–47. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2018.

Constitutional Assembly (South Africa). The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. 1996.

Dixon, Rosalind. “Calibrated Proportionality.” Federal Law Review 48, no. 1 (March 1, 2020): 92–122. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205X19890439

Hakim, Muh Ridha. “Tafsir Independensi Kekuasaan Kehakiman dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi.” Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan 7, no. 2 (July 29, 2018): 279–96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25216/jhp.7.2.2018.279-296

Häyry, Matti. “Just Better Utilitarianism.” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 30 (2020): 343–67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180120000882

Hendrianto, Stefanus. “Against the Currents: The Indonesian Constitutional Court in an Age of Proportionality.” In Proportionality in Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108862950.008

High Court of Australia. Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520.

_____. McCloy v New South Wales [2015] HCA 34; 257 CLR 178.

Jayadi, Anbar. “What Constitutes as Limitation of (Human) Rights in Indonesian Legal Context?” Hasanuddin Law Review 3, no. 3 (December 1, 2017): 290–306. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20956/halrev.v3i3.1203

Lailam, Tanto, and Putri Anggia. “The Indonesian Constitutional Court Approaches the Proportionality Principle to the Cases Involving Competing Rights.” Law Reform 19, no. 1 (2023): 110–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14710/lr.v19i1.54087

Landau, David, and Rosalind Dixon. “Abusive Judicial Review: Courts Against Democracy.” UC Davis Law Review 53 (2020): 1313–87.

Law, David S. “Generic Constitutional Law.” Minnesota Law Review 89 (2005): 652–742.

Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia. Naskah Komprehensif Perubahan UUD NRI Tahun 1945: Warga Negara dan Penduduk, Hak Asasi Manusia dan Agama. Vol. 8. Jakarta: Sekretariat Jenderal dan Kepaniteraan MK, 2010.

_____. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 011–017/PUU-I/2003 (2003).

_____. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 013/PUU-I/2003 (2003).

_____. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 019–020/PUU-III/2005 (2005).

_____. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 2–3/PUU-V/2007 (2007).

_____. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 52/PUU-VII/2009 (2009).

_____. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 98/PUU-VII/2009 (2009).

Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat Republik Indonesia. Ketetapan MPR Nomor XVII/MPR/1998 tentang Hak Asasi Manusia. 1998.

_____. Risalah Perubahan UUD NRI Tahun 1945: Tahun Sidang 2000. Vol. 2. Jakarta: Sekretariat Jenderal MPR RI, 2010.

_____. Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945. 2002.

Manullang, Fernando M. Korporatisme dalam Undang-Undang Dasar. Jakarta: Prenada, 2016.

Mbaku, John Mukum. “Protecting Human Rights in African Countries: International Law, Domestic Constitutional Interpretation, the Responsibility to Protect, and Presidential Immunities.” South Carolina Journal of International Law and Business 16, no. 1 (2019): 1–215.

Merriam-Webster. “Reasonable.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, 2025.

Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. Waiheke Island: Floating Press, 2009.

Morsink, Johannes. Article by Article: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights for a New Generation. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.9783/9780812298130

_____. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Origins, Drafting & Intent. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999.

Muda, Iskandar. “Follow-Up of Law-Making State Institutions to the Legal Message of the Constitutional Court Decision.” Jurnal Konstitusi 20, no. 1 (March 25, 2023): 19–35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31078/jk2012

Mujaddidi, Sipghotulloh. “Constitutionality of Human Right Limitation on Constitutional Court Decisions.” Jurnal Konstitusi 18, no. 3 (2021): 539–607. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1833

O’Connell, Paul. “On the Human Rights Question.” Human Rights Quarterly 40, no. 4 (November 2018): 962–88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/hrq.2018.0051

Online Etymology Dictionary. “Proportion.” Last modified December 12, 2020.

Oxford English Dictionary. “Proportion.” 2025.

Republik Indonesia. Konstitusi Republik Indonesia Serikat (1949).

_____. Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945 (sebelum amandemen) (1945).

_____. Undang-Undang Dasar Sementara (1950).

Rosenfeld, Michel. Just Interpretations: Law between Ethics and Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998.

Safaat, Muchamad Ali, Aan Eko Widiarto, dan Fajar Laksono Suroso. “Pola Penafsiran Konstitusi dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Periode 2003–2008 dan 2009–2013.” Jurnal Konstitusi 14, no. 2 (November 2, 2017): 234–61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1421

Sampaio, Jorge Silva. “Proportionality in Its Narrow Sense and Measuring the Intensity of Restrictions on Fundamental Rights.” In Proportionality in Law: An Analytical Perspective, edited by Jorge Silva Sampaio and David Duarte, 71–110. Cham: Springer, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89647-2_4

Sandel, Michael J. Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/e597132010-001

Sekretariat Negara Republik Indonesia. Risalah Sidang Badan Penyelidik Usaha-Usaha Persiapan Kemerdekaan Indonesia (BPUPKI) dan Panitia Persiapan Kemerdekaan Indonesia (PPKI). Jakarta: Sekretariat Negara RI, 1995.

Sieckmann, Jan. “Proportionality as a Universal Human Rights Principle.” In Proportionality in Law: An Analytical Perspective, edited by David Duarte and Jorge Silva Sampaio, 3–24. Cham: Springer, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89647-2_1

Simanjuntak, Marsillam. Pandangan Negara Integralistik. Jakarta: Pustaka Utama Grafiti, 1994.

Slaughter, Anne-Marie. “Judicial Globalization.” Virginia Journal of International Law 40, no. 4 (2000): 1103–24.

Sola, Andrew. “Utilitarianism and Consequentialist Ethics: Framing the Greater Good.” In Ethics and Pandemics, 61–83. Cham: Springer, 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33207-4_4

Solan, Lawrence M. “Why It Is So Difficult to Resolve Vagueness in Legal Interpretation.” In Vagueness and Law: Philosophical and Legal Perspectives, edited by Geert Keil and Ralf Poscher, 231–46. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198782889.003.0011

Stone, Adrienne. “Proportionality and Its Alternatives.” Federal Law Review 48, no. 1 (2020): 124–56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205X19890448

Stone Sweet, Alec, and Jud Mathews. “Proportionality Balancing and Global Constitutionalism.” Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 47 (2008): 72–164.

Triningsih, Anna, dan Oly Viana Agustine. “Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi yang Memuat Keadilan Sosial dalam Pengujian Undang-Undang.” Jurnal Konstitusi 16, no. 4 (January 28, 2020): 834–60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1648

United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 1948.

Watts, Mark. “Reasonably Appropriate and Adapted? Assessing Proportionality and the ‘Spectrum’ of Scrutiny in McCloy v New South Wales.” University of Queensland Law Journal 35, no. 2 (2016): 349–69.