Inkonsistensi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam Memutus Perpanjangan Masa Jabatan Ketua Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi
Abstract
The Constitutional Court or hereinafter abbreviated as MK is one of the judicial institutions that has a very important role in guarding and maintaining the constitution. To carry out this role, MK has the authority to conduct judicial review in the form of testing a law to ensure that the law formed by the legislator does not conflict with higher norms, namely the Constitution. However, in exercising this authority, MK in several of its decisions often causes polemics in the community due to the inconsistency of decisions experienced by the court in deciding similar cases. As in the case of testing the institutional term of office, which has been tested several times to MK but has different verdicts, where the majority of the MK decisions consistently reject and do not grant the applicant's request in this type of case, but on the other hand there are MK decisions that grant the applicant's request to extend the existing term of office, such as MK Decision Number 112/PUU-XX/2022 which extends the term of office of the leadership of the KPK from 4 to 5 years. This writing uses a Normative Juridical research type, with a statutory approach, conceptual approach. This research shows that the MK has experienced inconsistency in its stance when compared to several similar MK decisions that have examined the issue of the term of office of other independent institutions and that the Decision a quo has given rise to the meaning of existing legal consequences.
Downloads
References
I Dewa Gede Palguna, Mahkamah Konstitusi, Judicial Review dan Welfare State, cetakan pertama, Jakarta: Sekretariat Jendral dan Kepaniteraan Mahkamah Konstitusi, 2008.
Mahkamah Konstitusi, Mengawal Demokrasi Menegakan Keadilan Substantif, Jakarta: Laporan Tahunan Mahakamah Konstitusi, 2009.
Sandrine Baume, Hans Kelsen and The Case For Democrazy, Colechester UK: University ofEssex, 2012.
Nurrahman Aji Utomo, “Dinamika Hubungan Antara Pengujian Undang-Undang dengan Pembentukan Undang-Undang, Jurnal Konstitusi” 12, no. 4 (2015).
Fauzani Muhammad Addi, “Urgensi Rekonstruksi Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam Memberikan Pertimbangan Kebijakan Hukum Terbuka (Open Legal Policy)”, Justitia Et PAX 35, no. 2 (2019).
Bachtiar, Problematika Implementasi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi pada Pengujian UU terhadap UUD, Jakarta: Raih Asa Sukses, 2015.
Sudikno Mertokusumo, Hukum Acara Perdata Indonesia, Yogyakarta: Liberty, 1998.
Maruarar Siahaan, Hukum Acara Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia, Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2011.
H. A. S. Natabaya, Menata Ulang Sistem Peraturan Perundang-undangan Indonesia: jejak Langkah dan Pemikiran Hukum, Jakarta: Sekretariat Jenderal dan Kepaniteraan Mahkamah Konstitusi, 2008.
Copyright (c) 2025 Yondri Siletty, Muhammad Irham, Miracle Soplanit (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish their manuscripts in this Journal agree to the following conditions:
- The copyright in each article belongs to the author, as well as the right to patent.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
- Authors have the right to self-archiving of the article (Author Self-Archiving Policy)
