Implikasi Hukum Pengaturan Hukum Acara Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam Bentuk Peraturan Mahkamah Konstitusi

Abstract

Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia 1945 (UUD 1945) Pasal 24C ayat (6) menentukan bahwa hukum acara serta ketentuan lainnya tentang Mahkamah Konstitusi diatur dengan undang-undang. Berdasarkan ketentuan tersebut jelas bahwa hukum cara Mahkamah Konstitusi diatur dengan undang-undang. Makna frasa "diatur dengan" menurut Undang-Undang Nomor 12 Tahun 2011 tentang Pembentukan Peraturan Perundang-undangan materi muatan itu harus diatur hanya di dalam Peraturan Perundang-undangan yang didelegasikan dan tidak boleh didelegasikan lebih lanjut ke Peraturan Perundang-undangan yang lebih rendah (subdelegasi). Pokok permasalahan yang penting diteliti adalah apa implikasi hukum pengaturan hukum acara Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam bentuk Peraturan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Sesuai dengan permasalahan yang diangkat, penelitian ini adalah penelitian doktrinal atau juga disebut sebagai penelitian normatif. Pendekatan yang digunakan adalah pendekatan teoretis (theoretical approach), dan pendekatan konseptual (conceptual approach). Implikasi hukum pengaturan hukum acara Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam bentuk Peraturan Mahkamah Konstitusi berdasarkan hasil penelitian ini teridentifikasi ada 3 (tiga), yaitu: ketidakpastian hukum, pelanggaran hierarki peraturan perundang-undangan, dan ketiadaan tertib hukum. Akibat ketiga implikasi hukum tersebut maka penyelenggaraan wewenang dan kewajiban Mahkamah Konstitusi menjadi tidak sah. Namun demikian mengingat asas kemanfaatan dan asas praduga rechtsmatig maka selama memberi mandat dan sampai dengan belum ada pembatalan Peraturan Mahkamah Konstitusi maka tindakan MK selalu harus dianggap benar.1945 Constitution (UUD 1945) Article 24C Paragraph (6) provides that the procedural law and other provisions concerning the Constitutional Court shall be regulated by act. Based on these provisions it is clear that the law of the way the Constitutional Court is regulated by act. The meaning of the phrase "governed by" pursuant to Act No. 12 of 2011 concerning the Establishment of the Acts and Regulations on the contents of the content shall be regulated only in the delegated Legislation and shall not be further delegated to the lower Legislation Regulations (subdelegations ). The main issue that is important to examine is what is the legal implication of regulation of procedural law of the Constitutional Court in the form of Constitutional Court Regulation not in an Act. In accordance with the issues raised, this study is a doctrinal research or also referred to as normative research. The approaches are theoretical approach, and the conceptual approach. The legal implications of the procedural law setting of the Constitutional Court in the form of Constitutional Court Regulation based on the results of this study are identified there are 3 (three), namely: legal uncertainty, violation of legal hierarchy of regulations, and absence of orderly law. As a result of these three legal implications, the legal consequences for the implementation of the authority and duties of the Constitutional Court become invalid. However, considering the principle of expediency and presupposition principle of rechtsmatig then as long as giving benefit and until there is no cancellation of the Constitutional Court Regulation, the action of the Constitutional Court must always be considered true.

The Legal Power of the Constitutional Court Decisions Remains

“…This institution is an institution that completes the form of checks and balances. A constitutional court decision that is permanent since it was pronounced in a plenary session open to the public can cancel a legal product that was discussed involving two state powers, namely the DPR, as the holder of legislative power, and the Government, in the executive sector (Widiarto, 2019). Even though these political decisions are produced through tough debates require a long period, and consume quite a large state budget.…”

Legal Implications of Regulating Judicial Review of District/City Regulations in Indonesia

“…The Constitutional Court's decision Number 012-016-019/PUU-IV/2006 confirmed the meaning of the phrase "regulated by" namely it is believed that from a technical standpoint, the phrase "regulated by law" means that it must be regulated by a separate law. In addition, the phrase "regulated by law" also means that it must be regulated by laws and regulations in the form of laws, not in the form of other laws and regulations (Widiarto, A. E., 2019). Thus, the provisions of Law 12/2011 and the Constitutional Court Decision Number 012-016-019/PUU-IV/2006 determine that the meaning of the phrase "regulated by" in an order to delegate further regulation includes elements: a. must be regulated only in-laws and regulations which are delegated separately; b. may not be further delegated to lower laws and regulations (sub-delegation); and c. the material is not mixed with other material that is not ordered to be further regulated (Widiarto, A. E., 2019).…”

Reconstruction of Judicial Review Arrangements for Regional Regulations in Indonesia

“…This is because the testing of statutory regulation is a form of control mechanism over a legal norm (legal norm control mechanism). According to Aan Eko Widiarto, the entire legal product must be a harmonious whole (because it is synchronous or consistent vertically and horizontally) both from the material aspect which includes legal principles/because it fulfills the principles of establishing good laws and regulations, and the principle of material content) and by the legal principle which is the legal background/reason/ratio from the formation of the law, the meaning (both explicit and implied meaning), to the use of terminology; as well as from a formal aspect where the method of preparation must be by the applicable provisions (Widiarto, A. E., 2019).…”