Prospects for the Extension of the Authority of the Constitutional Court in Cases of General Election Result Disputes

By Muhammad Haaziq Bujang Syarif

24 Apr 2024 06:16 WIB 24 April 2024 06:16 WIB 10 minutes reading time: 10 minutes 1 read

This article discusses the extension of the authority of the Constitutional Court (MK) of Indonesia in handling general election result disputes.

Prospects for the Extension of the Authority of the Constitutional Court in Cases of General Election Result Disputes

Opinion Note

This opinion article was written by a contributor/columnist. The views expressed are entirely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors.

CONTRIBUTOR PROGRAM

You can become a columnist at Legal Literacy.

Submit your legal opinion/analysis writing. If it is published, you have the opportunity to obtain a payout/honorarium in accordance with the provisions.

Submit Article Read Guidelines

Table of Contents

Questioning the Problems of the Constitutional Court
Examining the Legal Reasoning of Decision Number 138/PUU-VII/2009
The Idea of General Election Dispute Process
References

Baca tanpa iklan.

Gabung Membership

Legal Literacy - This article discusses the extension of the authority of the Constitutional Court of Indonesia in handling disputes over general election results. Through a case analysis of Decision Number 138/PUU-VII/2009, the author outlines how the Constitutional Court expanded its interpretation of the constitution, set aside the principle of judicial restraint, and considered the teleological aspect in its decision. This article also explores the potential for similar applications in resolving future general election result disputes, as well as the juridical and political implications of the Constitutional Court's more progressive approach in the context of national and constitutional law.

Questioning the Problems of the Constitutional Court

The Law regarding the Constitutional Court, with the latest amendment by Law Number 7 of 2020, is a Law that receives normative attribution from the Constitution. Its position as a recipient of normative attribution originating from the text of the Constitution gives it privileges, including the authority to establish further regulations regarding certain Law materials as an extension of the Constitution. The regulations that are further regulated include the requirements to become a Justice of the Constitutional Court, the election of the Chief Justice and Deputy Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, and the retirement age for Justices of the Constitutional Court.

The object of normative study that needs to be highlighted is the vacuum of further regulations that touch on the realm of the Constitutional Court's authority itself. Throughout the author's research until this paper was issued, no regulations in the form of Law were found that regulate such matters. The four authorities and one obligation of the Constitutional Court outlined in the Constitution are derived as they are without shifts and extensions into the form of Law and Perpu (Perpu Number 1 of 2013 which was enacted into Law with Law Number 4 of 2014). This normative reality is interesting because legal products outside of Law and Perpu are found that touch on areas not touched by Law and also Perpu.

Legal products that are recognized by national law, and also by other rule of law, are not only dimensioned as law in abstract, in the form of Laws and their derivatives, but also dimensioned as law in concrete, in the form of court decisions or jurisprudence. In the treasury of the Constitutional Court's jurisprudence, jurisprudence is found that touches on this realm, including Decision Number 138/PUU-VII/2009. The a quo decision can be said to be a progressive-controversial decision because it steps over several fences that in legal tradition must be obeyed by the Constitutional Court.