Alika Hania Auliya, Dedi Mulyadi, Fawazi Rihadatulaisy Mulyadi, Mustika Hidayat, Yasmin Khairunisa , Yudha Adhipratama

Peranan Hukum Acara Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam Menjaga Konstitusionalisme di Indonesia

Introduction

Peranan hukum acara mahkamah konstitusi dalam menjaga konstitusionalisme di indonesia. Pelajari peran vital hukum acara Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam menjaga konstitusionalisme di Indonesia. Pahami fungsi, kewenangan, & tantangan MK sebagai pengawal konstitusi.

Abstract

This study aims to analyze the role of the Constitutional Court’s procedural law in upholding constitutionalism in Indonesia. The method used is normative legal research with a qualitative approach through a literature review, utilizing primary, secondary, and tertiary legal sources. The data was analyzed systematically to understand the authority, functions, and practices of the Constitutional Court within the constitutional system. The results of the study indicate that the Constitutional Court plays a strategic role as a guardian of the constitution through its authority to review laws against the 1945 Constitution, resolve disputes over the authority of state institutions, dissolve political parties, and address disputes regarding election results. The Constitutional Court’s procedural law serves as a crucial guideline to ensure that the review process and decision-making proceed effectively, transparently, and fairly. Additionally, the Constitutional Court plays a role in the impeachment mechanism as a balancing force between legal and political aspects. However, challenges exist in the form of unclear boundaries between legal and political considerations, as well as inconsistencies in the interpretation of legal standing and constitutional harm. This necessitates the strengthening of judicial standards and the consistency of rulings to maintain the institution’s legitimacy and reinforce the supremacy of the constitution and democracy.

Review

The article "Peranan Hukum Acara Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam Menjaga Konstitusionalisme di Indonesia" presents a timely and crucial analysis of the Constitutional Court's procedural law. Employing a normative legal research methodology with a qualitative approach, the study effectively leverages a comprehensive literature review of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal sources. The abstract clearly outlines the paper's objective: to dissect the vital role of procedural law in upholding constitutionalism in Indonesia. It successfully highlights the Constitutional Court's multi-faceted strategic functions, including judicial review, resolving inter-institutional disputes, party dissolution, election dispute resolution, and its involvement in the impeachment process. This initial summary promises a thorough exploration of the procedural mechanisms that guide the Court's operations and ensure its legitimacy. The study compellingly demonstrates that the Constitutional Court serves as a critical guardian of the constitution in Indonesia, with its procedural law acting as the bedrock for effective and fair decision-making. The abstract details the Court's extensive authority, which ranges from reviewing legislation against the 1945 Constitution to acting as a vital check in the impeachment mechanism, thereby balancing legal and political considerations. This focus on procedural law as a "crucial guideline" underscores its significance in ensuring transparency, efficiency, and fairness throughout the Court's adjudicatory processes. The paper's systematic analysis of the Court's functions and practices within the constitutional system offers valuable insights into its operational framework and its direct impact on maintaining the rule of law and democratic principles. While the paper effectively identifies the Constitutional Court's profound role, it commendably acknowledges several pertinent challenges that necessitate further attention. The abstract points to critical issues such as the unclear demarcation between legal and political considerations, and inconsistencies in the interpretation of legal standing and constitutional harm. These identified ambiguities are crucial for maintaining judicial integrity and legitimacy. The study's call for strengthening judicial standards and consistency in rulings is well-founded, serving as a vital recommendation for reinforcing the supremacy of the constitution and democracy. Future research could build upon these identified challenges by offering more prescriptive solutions, perhaps through comparative analysis of other constitutional courts or detailed case studies illustrating these inconsistencies, thereby further enriching the discourse on Indonesian constitutional law.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.