Analisis Efektivitas Penyusunan Permohonan Pengujian Undang-Undang di Mahkamah Konstitusi Berdasarkan Teori Efektivitas Hukum

Abstract

The preparation of petitions for judicial review before the Constitutional Court constitutes a crucial stage in constitutional adjudication, as it provides the basis for constitutional justices to assess the Court's jurisdiction, the petitioner's legal standing, constitutional arguments, and the relief sought. Judicial practice indicates that many petitions still require revision due to deficiencies in the formulation of legal standing, posita, petitum, and constitutional arguments. This study aims to analyze the preparation of judicial review petitions based on the procedural law governing the Constitutional Court and to examine their effectiveness through the perspective of the theory of legal effectiveness. This research employs a normative legal research method using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. Legal materials were collected through library research consisting of legislation, Constitutional Court decisions, scholarly books, and scientific journal articles, which were analyzed qualitatively using a descriptive-analytical method. The findings reveal that the preparation of judicial review petitions has been regulated by clear procedural standards. However, their effectiveness has not been fully achieved due to weaknesses in drafting legal standing, constitutional arguments, and the consistency between posita and petitum. Based on Soerjono Soekanto's theory of legal effectiveness, legal factors and supporting facilities have provided an adequate framework, while community factors, law enforcement in terms of implementation, and legal culture remain the primary obstacles to achieving effective petition drafting.