The Criticism on the Meaning of “Open Legal Policy” in Verdicts of Judicial Review at the Constitutional Court

Mardian Wibowo

Abstract


In several verdicts of judicial review, the Constitutional Court formulates a concept of Open Legal Policy. The concept begins from a condition when a norm of law submitted to judicial review by the 1945 Constitution does not have reference in the 1945 Constitution. In other words, the open legal policy is a condition when the Constitutional Court cannot find any reference for the norm submitted to the judicial review. By using a construction method, this present research tries to find the meaning of a concept of open legal policy arranged by the Constitutional Court, then assessing whether the concept is in line with the spirit of judicial review. If the formulation of the concept done by the Constitutional Court has not been ideal, the deconstruction will be conducted toward the meaning that already exists until the open legal policy ideal with the perspective of the constitution is found. In this research, the finding shows different meaning of open legal policy between various verdicts of the Constitutional Court. Moreover, a new meaning is proposed including improvement of criteria of the open legal policy based on the difference between the object of regulation (what) and the content of the regulation (how).

Keywords


Open Legal Policy; Construction; Deconstruction

Full Text:

PDF

References


Asshiddiqie, Jimly. Peradilan Etik dan Etika Konstitusi: Perspektif Baru Tentang ‘Rule of Law and Rule of Ethics’ & Constitutional Law and Constitutional Ethics’. 2nd Edition. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2015.

Barak, Aharon. Purposive Interpretation in Law. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005.

Barber, N. W. The Constitutional State. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Bertens, K. Filsafat Barat Kontemporer: Inggris-Jerman. Jakarta: Gramedia, 2002.

Bruggink, J. J. H. Refleksi Tentang Hukum. Bandung: Citra Aditya Bakti, 1999.

Dheeraj, and Sinha. “Legal Dictionary.” Legal Dictionary. Kuala Lumpur: International Law Book Services, 1996.

Effendi, S, Kentjono Djoko, and Suhardi Basuki. Tata Bahasa Dasar Bahasa Indonesia. Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya, 2015.

Garner, Bryan. Black’s Law Dictionary. 9th Edition. Minnesota: West, 2009.

Hadjon, Philipus, Sri Martosoewignjo, Sjachran Basah, Manan Bagir, Laica Marzuki, J. B. J. M ten Berge, P. J. J Van Buuren, and F. A. M Stroink.

Pengantar Hukum Administrasi Indonesia. 7th Printing. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press, 2001.

Hardiman, Budi. Filsafat Fragmentaris. Yogyakarta: Kanisius, 2007.

———. Melampaui Positivisme dan Modernitas. Yogyakarta: Kanisius, 2003.

———. Seni Memahami: Hermeneutik Dari Schleiermacher Sampai Derrida. Yogyakarta: Kanisius, 2015.

Harman, Benny. Mempertimbangkan Mahkamah Konstitusi: Sejarah Pemikiran Pengujian UU Terhadap UUD. Jakarta: KPG, 2013.

Judicial Review Number 3 of 2009 on the Second Amendment of Indonesian Law Number 14 of 1985 on the Constitutional Court against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, No. 25/PUU-XI/2013 (the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia 2013).

Judicial Review Number 8 of 2012 on General Election of the Members of the People Representatives’ Council, Regional Representatives’ Council, and Regional People Representatives’ Council against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, No. 2/PUU-XI/2013 (The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia 2013).

Judicial Review Number 8 of 2015 on the Amendment of Indonesian Law Number 1 of 2015 on the Enactment of Government Regulation in Lieu of Laws Number 1 of 2014 on the Election of Governor, Regent, and Mayor into Law against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, No. 80/PUU-XIII/2015 (The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia 2015).

Judicial Review Number 10 of 2008 on General Election of the Members of the People Representatives’ Council , Regional Representatives’ Council, and Regional People Representatives’ Council, No. 3/PUU-VII/2009 (the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia 2009).

Judicial Review Number 12 of 2003 on General Election of the Members of the People Representatives’ Council, Regional Representatives’ Council, and Regional People Representatives’ Council against the 1945 Constitution, No. 16/PUU-V/2007 (The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia 2007).

Judicial Review Number 15 of 2011 on General Election against the 1945 Constitution, No. 31/PUU-XI/2013 (the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia 2013).

Judicial Review Number. 22 of 2007 on General Election, No. 11/PUU-VIII/2010 (The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia 2010).

Judicial Review Number 23 of 2011 on the Management of Zakat against the 1945 Constitution, No. 86/PUU-X/2012 (The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia 2012).

Judicial Review Number 29 of 2004 on Medical Practice against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, No. 14/PUU-XII/2014 (The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia 2014).

Judicial Review Number 32 of 2004 on Regional Government against the 1945 Constitution, No. 006/PUU-III/2005 (The Constitutional Court 2005).

Judicial Review Number 42 of 2008 on General Election of President and Vice President against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, No. 51–52–59/PUU–VI/2008 (the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia 2008).

Judicial Review Number 44 of 2009 on Hospital against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, No. 38/PUU-XI/2013 (2013).

Kaelan. “Filsafat Analitis Menurut Ludwig Wittgenstein: Relevansinya Bagi Pengembangan Pragmatik.” Jurnal Humaniora 16, no. 2 (2004).

Keith, Whittington. Constitutional Interpretation: Textual Meaning, Original Intent, and Judicial Review. Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 1999.

Kuhn, Thomas. Peran Paradigma Dalam Revolusi Sains,. 6th Printing. Bandung: PT. Remaja Rosdakarya., 2008.

Lubis, Akhyar Yusuf. Postmodernisme Teori dan Metode. Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada, 2014.

Mahfud, M. D. Konstitusi dan Hukum dalam Kontroversi Isu. Jakarta: Rajawali Press, 2009.

———. Perdebatan Hukum Tata Negara. Jakarta: LP3ES, 2009.

Martin, Elizabeth. “A Dictionary of Law.” A Dictionary of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Mertokusumo, Sudikno. Penemuan Hukum Sebuah Pengantar. Yogyakarta: Liberty, 2004.

Muchsan. Pengantar Hukum Administrasi Negara Indonesia. Yogyakarta: Liberty, 1982.

Mustansyir, Rizal. Filsafat Analitik: Sejarah, Perkembangan, dan Peranan Para Tokohnya. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar, 2007.

Nurjaya, I Nyoman. “Perkembangan Pemikiran Konsep Pluralisme Hukum.” Jakarta, 2004.

Pratiwi, Cekli, Christina Yullita, Fauzi, and Shinta Purnamawati. Penjelasan Hukum Asas-Asas Umum Pemerintahan Yang Baik (AUPB) Hukum Administrasi Negara. Jakarta: LeIP, 2016.

Putra, I Gede Eka. AAUPB Sebagai Dasar Pengujian dan Alasan Menggugat Keputusan Tata Usaha Negara (Pengadilan Tata Usahan Negara 2017).

Rasjidi, Lili, and Ida Bagus Wyasa Putra. Hukum Sebagai Suatu Sistem. Bandung: Mandar Maju, 2003.

Ritzer, George, and Douglas Goodman. Teori Sosiologi Modern. Jakarta: Kencana, 2004.

Salwsan, S. L, and U Narang. “Academic’s Legal Dictionary.” Academic’s Legal Dictionary. New Delhi: Academic India Publisher, 2004.

Snijders, Adelbert. Manusia dan Kebenaran: Sebuah Filsafat Pengetahuan. Yogyakarta: Kanisius, 2006.

Soehartono. “Eksistensi Asas-Asas Umum Pemerintahan Yang Baik Sebagai Dasar Pengujian Keabsahan Keputusan Tata Usaha Negara Di Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara.” Jurnal Yustisia 83 (n.d.).

Tim Penyusun Kamus Pusat Bahasa. “Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia, (3rd Ed., 1st Printing).” Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia, (3rd Ed., 1st Printing). Jakarta: Balai Pustaka, 2001.

Tushnet, Mark. Why The Constitution Matters. London: Yale University Publisher, 2010.

Wattimena, Reza. Melampaui Negara Hukum Klasik: Locke-Rousseau-Habermas. Yogyakarta: Kanisius, 2007.

Wibowo, Mardian. “Justices’ Freedom of Constitutional Interpretation Method in The Indonesian Constitutional Court.” Mimbar Hukum 25, no. 2 (n.d.).

Wild, Susan, and Jonathan Wallace. “Webster’s New World.” Law Dictionary. Canada: Webster’s New World, 2006.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2018 Constitutional Review