Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi yang Memuat Keadilan Sosial dalam Pengujian Undang-Undang

Abstract

Mahkamah Konstitusi sebagai lembaga yang lahir berdasarkan amandemen UUD 1945 memiliki fungsi sebagai lembaga terakhir penafsir konstitusi atau yang sering disebut sebagai the final interpreter of constitution. Fungsi ini biasanya dilaksanakan Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam kewenangannya menguji undang-undang terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar 1945. Terhadap frasa, ayat, pasal atau undang-undang yang dianggap tidak jelas atau multitafsir telah dimohonkan untuk diberikan penafsiran sesuai dengan konstitusi. Pun demikian dengan frasa keadilan sosial yang terdapat dalam beberapa undang-undang yang telah diputus Mahkamah Konstitusi. Terdapat 16 (enam belas) putusan dengan 10 (sepuluh) isu konstitusional dalam pengujian undang-undang selama periode 2003–2010 dalam bidang ketenagalistrikan, minyak dan gas bumi, ketenagakerjaan, sistem jaminan sosial nasional, sumber daya air, penanaman modal, pajak penghasilan, pengelolaan wilayah pesisir dan pulau-pulau kecil dan pertambangan mineral dan batu bara. Dari 10 isu konstitusional tersebut, dalam pertimbangan hukumnya Mahkamah lebih sering memilih menggunakan interpretasi gramatikal, interpretasi historis, interpretasi teleologis atau sosilologis dan interpretasi komparatif atau perbandingan. Mahkamah Konstitusi menyatakan bahwa keadilan sosial dalam Pembukaan UUD 1945, mengandung makna “penguasaan negara” artinya negara harus menjadikan penguasaan terhadap cabang produksi yang dikuasainya itu memenuhi tiga hal yang menjadi kepentingan masyarakat: ketersediaan yang cukup, distribusi yang merata, dan terjangkaunya harga bagi orang banyak. Dengan dikuasai oleh negara, keadilan sosial diartikan mencakup makna penguasaan oleh negara dalam luas yang bersumber dan diturunkan dari konsepsi kedaulatan rakyat Indonesia atas segala sumber kekayaan “bumi, air dan kekayaan alam yang terkandung di dalamnya”, termasuk pula di dalamnya pengertian kepemilikan publik oleh kolektivitas rakyat atas sumber-sumber kekayaan dimaksud. The Constitutional Court as an institution born based on the amendments to the 1945 Constitution has a function as the final interpreter of constitution. This function is usually carried out by the Constitutional Court in its authority to examine laws against the 1945 Constitution. Regarding phrases, verses, articles or laws that are deemed unclear or multiple interpretations have been requested to be interpreted in accordance with the constitution. Even so with the phrase social justice contained in several laws that have been decided by the Constitutional Court. There are 16 (sixteen) decisions with 10 (ten) constitutional issues in judicial review during the 2003–2010 period in the fields of electricity, oil and gas, employment, national social security systems, water resources, investment, tax income, management of coastal areas and small islands and mining of minerals and coal. Of the 10 constitutional issues, in its legal considerations the Court often chooses to use grammatical interpretations, historical interpretations, teleological or sosilological interpretations and comparative or comparative interpretations. The Constitutional Court stated that social justice in the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution, contained the meaning of "state control" means that the state must make control of the controlled branch of production fulfill three things that are in the public interest: adequate availability, equitable distribution and affordability. By being controlled by the state, social justice is interpreted to include the meaning of control by the state in a broad sense that is derived and derived from the conception of the sovereignty of the people of Indonesia over all sources of wealth "earth, water and natural wealth contained in it" the people for the intended sources of wealth.

Legal Reasoning of the Constitutional Court Verdict Number 25/PUU-XX/2022 on the State Capital Law According to Social Justice Value

“…The principle of justice is what the Indonesian people aspire to, as described in the second and fifth precepts of the Pancasila, called "just and civilized humanity" (Kemanusiaan yang adil dan beradab), and "social justice for all Indonesian people" (Keadilan sosial bagi seluruh rakyat Indonesia) (Triningsih & Agustine, 2020). Social justice implies that society has the right to participate in the government structure, including the drafting and implementation of laws (Yasir, Firzal, Sulistyani, & Yesicha, 2021).…”

Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia: Does the Ultra Petita Principle Reflect the Truth of Law?

“…Decision Number 85/PUU-XI/2013, the thing that becomes an important point in the testing of the Water Resources Law is the affirmation of very strict restrictions in water resources management. 53 The exploitation of water must not disturb, set aside, let alone abolish people's rights to water because the earth, water and other natural resources must be managed by the state, as an allotment for human heritage; the second restriction is that the state must fulfil the people's right to water. The consideration states that accesses to water is a separate human right; the third restriction is that the management of water resources must bear in mind the sustainability of life; the fourth restriction is that water as an important branch of production and controls the livelihoods of many lives, and must be controlled by the state as human heritage (vide Article 33 (2) and (3) of the 1945 Indonesia Constitution), then supervision on the water by the water is absolute; and as a continuation of the right to control by the state and because water is something that controls the livelihoods of many people, the top priority given to the operation of water is a State-Owned or Regional-Owned Enterprise.…”