Publisher

UNNESUNNES

Journal JSIJSI Abstract

Penelitian ini akan mengangkat permasalahan yang akan dikaji yaitu, Pertama, pengaturan perbedaan pendapat (dissenting opinion) dalam UU Acara MK. Kedua, kekuatan hukum perbedaan pendapat dalam Putusan MK. Ketiga, implikasi hukum perbedaan pendapat dalam Putusan MK. Hal ini menghasilkan kesimpulan Pertama, pengaturan perbedaan pendapat dalam pedoman MK dalam hal ini PMK tidak dapat ditemukan secara keseluruhan. Pengaturan dissenting opinion dalam PMK independensi hakim konstitusi dalam menyampaikan pendapat tetap dipertahankan. Kedua, secara eksplisit, tidak ada pengaturan mengenai dissenting opinion. Ungkapan yang digunakan dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 24 Tahun 2003 tentang Mahkamah Konstitusi adalah “pendapat anggota majelis hakim yang berbeda. Ketiga, implikasi hukum dari dissenting opinion dalam putusan MK adalah ketidakpastian hukum, pelanggaran hierarki peraturan perundang-undangan, dan tidak adanya ketertiban hukum. Perumusan dissenting opinion diperlukan untuk memperjelas posisinya dalam hukum acara di MK. Hal ini hanya dapat dilakukan jika perangkat hukum yang mengaturnya memberikan legitimasi penuh kepada hakim konstitusi dalam perbedaan pendapat. Saran penulis dalam penelitian ini adalah memperkuat kekuatan hukum dissenting opinion, sebagai tindakan preventif terhadap reformasi hukum di masa depan untuk menjamin kepastian, keadilan. dan kemanfaatan hukum bagi seluruh masyarakat.

Conclusion

This study concluded that the arrangement of dissenting opinions in the constitutional courts guidelines in this case in the PMK cannot be found in its entirety.The arrangement of dissenting opinions in the PMK ensures that constitutional judges get their ability to give different opinions to be maintained, so that the dissenting opinion given gets the legal certainty contained in the Constitutional Courts decision, which has the opportunity to continue to be maintained.on each judge of the Constitutional Court to give and submit his opinion that is different from the majority of other judges.The quality of dissenting opinion is not seen from the number of mk judges who submit it, but the substance built in dissenting opinion must be able to seen in very broad glasses that it is able to be a preventive step in the development of the law in the future.Explicitly, there is no setting on dissenting opinions.24 of 2003 of the Constitutional Court is the opinion of different members of the panel of judges.Dissenting opinion or concurring opinion is a category in the opinions of different judges.If a decision has a concurring opinion is a different opinion of the judge but it does not have a direct impact on the decision given by the majority of other judges.Meanwhile, dissenting opinion is a judges opinion that is different from the majority of other judges, which does not lie in how the stages of legal reasoning are given but also has an impact on the difference from the consideration of the majority of judges who affects the decision.Without juridical affirmation in the law, dissenting opinion seems to be the extreme choice of a judge who deviates from the majority of other judges, but does not find legitimacy that specifically gives authority to him.The legal implications of dissenting opinion in the constitutional court decision are with the violation of hierarchy, legislation, the existence of legal uncertainty, and also cause the absence of legal order.If these three things are expressly and convincingly proven, it can be categorized that the implementation of mks authority can be said to be invalid.But when viewed in the perspective of expediency and also seen that the provision has not been submitted an application to be canceled then all the authority owned must be considered correct to the extent that there is no application for testing to be canceled.This can only be implemented if the legal instruments that govern it give full legitimacy to constitutional judges in dissenting, along with the mechanism and implications for future legal developments.But the substance of the applicable law is not able to compensate for the frequency of judges who dissent and the complexity of cases that require arguments from constitutional judges.So that the formulation in question must be directed to formulations related to the arrangement.

Future Research

Berdasarkan hasil penelitian, terdapat beberapa saran penelitian lanjutan yang dapat dilakukan. Pertama, perlu dilakukan penguatan terhadap kekuatan hukum dissenting opinion sebagai tindakan preventif terhadap reformasi hukum di masa depan. Kedua, penting untuk memastikan bahwa dissenting opinion merupakan bagian integral dari keputusan Mahkamah Konstitusi, sehingga dapat digunakan sebagai referensi dalam pengambilan keputusan di masa depan. Ketiga, perlu ada mekanisme dan implikasi yang jelas terkait dengan pengembangan hukum di masa depan, terutama dalam hal pengaturan dan legitimasi dissenting opinion. Dengan demikian, penelitian lanjutan dapat fokus pada pengembangan hukum yang lebih komprehensif dan memastikan kepastian hukum bagi seluruh masyarakat.

References

1. Menakar Konstitusionalitas sebuah Kebijakan Hukum Terbuka dalam Pengujian Undang-Undang | Jurnal Konstitusi.... doi.org/10.31078/jk1221Menakar Konstitusionalitas sebuah Kebijakan Hukum Terbuka dalam Pengujian Undang Undang Jurnal Konstitusi doi 10 31078 jk1221
2. INITIATING A PERMANENT ELECTORAL BODY TO RESOLVE DIGNIFIED ELECTION DISPUTES: ASSESSING THE EFFECTIVENESS... doi.org/10.20961/yustisia.v9i3.44437INITIATING A PERMANENT ELECTORAL BODY TO RESOLVE DIGNIFIED ELECTION DISPUTES ASSESSING THE EFFECTIVENESS doi 10 20961 yustisia v9i3 44437
3. Juridical Analysis of Dissenting Opinions of Constitutional Judges in Constitutional Court Decisions... journal.unnes.ac.id/nju/index.php/jsi/article/view/36048Juridical Analysis of Dissenting Opinions of Constitutional Judges in Constitutional Court Decisions journal unnes ac nju index php jsi article view 36048

Metadata

File size	564.14 KB
Pages	26
DMCA	Report