Praktik Keliru Doktrin Judicial Activism dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 90/PUU-XXI/2023

Dea Ananda; Herdiansyah Hamzah; Poppilea Erwinta

doi:10.55606/eksekusi.v4i2.2364

Authors

Dea Ananda Universitas Mulawarman
Herdiansyah Hamzah Universitas Mulawarman
Poppilea Erwinta Universitas Mulawarman

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55606/eksekusi.v4i2.2364

Keywords:

Constitutional Court, Constitutional Review, Judicial Activism, Judicial Power, Legal Interpretation

Abstract

This study aims to determine the requirements for applying the Doctrine of Judicial Activism in judicial decision-making and the errors contained in ConstitutionaL Court Decision Number 90/PUU-XXI of 2023.The research method used in this paper is a doctrinal approach. This research was conducted by reviewing literature such as previous research, journal references, laws and regulations, court decisions, reference books and research journals, and various oth er supporting sources. The results of this study answer two research questions. The research findings demonstrate how the doctrine of Judicial Activism operates effectively, in accordance with established requirements, and that the Constitutional Court must adhere to these requi rements and not rely solely on its own authority in making decisions. However, this research demonstrates that Constitutional Court Decision Number 90/PUU-XXI of 2023 erroneously applies the doctrine of Judicial Activism to the authority held by judges. This research also contributes to a deeper understanding of the limitations of the Constitutional Court's authority in material review, as well as the implications of applying this doctrine to the judicial process in Indonesia. Therefore, the results of this research are expected to serve as a reference for further legal studies on constitutional review in Indonesia.

References

Abdullah, S. (2024). Judicial activism. Deepublish.

Achmad, A. (2012). Menguak teori hukum dan teori peradilan. Kencana.

Ahmad, F. M. W., & Nggilu, N. M. (2020). Hukum konstitusi: Menyongsong fajar perubahan konstitusi Indonesia melalui pelibatan Mahkamah Konstitusi. UII Press. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1646

Aji, B. (2024). Inkonsistensi Mahkamah Konstitusi terhadap kedudukan hukum pemohon dalam putusan No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023 dengan putusan No. 74/PUU-XXI Tahun 2020. Sustainable Legal Review, 5(4), 16059. https://doi.org/10.20884/1.slr.2023.5.4.16059

Ali, M. (2019). Penelitian non-doctrinal: Pendekatan aplikatif dalam penelitian hukum. Mulawarman University Press.

Anshary Kelilauw, A. (2023). Asas nemo judex in causa sua dalam pengujian undang-undang. Rajawali Press.

Asshiddiqie, J. (2005). Konstitusi & konstitusionalisme Indonesia. Konstitusi Press.

Asshiddiqie, J. (2010). Hukum acara pengujian undang-undang. Sinar Grafika.

Asshiddiqie, J. (2011). Hukum tata negara dan pilar-pilar demokrasi. Sinar Grafika.

Asshiddiqie, J. (2013). Komentar atas Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945. Sinar Grafika.

Asshiddiqie, J. (2020). Konstitusi dan konstitusionalisme Indonesia. Rajagrafindo Persada.

Asshiddiqie, J. (2021). Hak asasi manusia dalam konstitusi Indonesia. PT Bhuana Ilmu Populer.

Dahlan Thalib, D., Hamidi, J., & Huda, N. (2011). Teori dan hukum konstitusi. Raja Grafindo Persada.

Fithriatus, S. (2019). Etika dan tanggung jawab profesi hukum. Kreasi Total Media.

Hidayat, A. (2025). The role of the Indonesian Constitutional Court in balancing law-making processes and judicial oversight. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 10(4), 359–374.

Huda, N. (2017). Hukum tata negara Indonesia. Nusa Media.

Huda, N. (2022). Hukum tata negara Indonesia dalam dinamika reformasi ketatanegaraan. Nusa Media.

Indrayana, D. (2008). Indonesian constitutional reform. Kompas.

Prabowo, H. A. (2023). The influence of judicial review on legislative processes: A comparative analysis between Indonesia and the United States. Journal of Constitutional Law and Governance, 8(2), 128–141.

Setiawan, A., & Sihombing, T. (2024). Judicial review and constitutional court in Indonesia: From Marbury to the modern era. Indonesian Law Review, 15(1), 42–55.