Judicial Overreach or Duty? The Constitutional Limits of Electoral Law-Making by the Court (Analysis of Decision No. 62/PUU-XXII/2024)

Ali Faisal; Achmad Sodik Sudrajat; Fikri Habibi

doi:10.30656/ajudikasi.v10i1.12584

Penulis

Ali Faisal Badan Pengawas Pemilu Provinsi Banten
Achmad Sodik Sudrajat Politeknik LAN Bandung
Fikri Habibi Administrasi Negara - FISIPKUM Universitas Serang Raya

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30656/ajudikasi.v10i1.12584

Kata Kunci:

Constitutional Directive, Judicial Law-Making, Electoral Law, Sparation of Powers

Abstrak

This article examines the constitutional limits of judicial law-making by the Indonesian Constitutional Court in the realm of electoral legislation, through a critical analysis of Decision No. 62/PUU-XXII/2024. This landmark ruling declared the presidential candidacy threshold under Article 222 of Law No. 7 of 2017 unconstitutional and, beyond its operative verdict, issued five constitutional engineering guidelines for the legislature to restructure the future presidential nomination system. This development triggers a profound institutional tension regarding whether such directives constitute legitimate constitutional interpretation, a constitutional directive, or unauthorized judicial law-making that encroaches upon legislative competence. Employing a normative legal methodology utilizing statute, case, conceptual, and constitutional approaches, this study analyzes the 1945 Constitution, the Constitutional Court Law, the Election Law, Decision No. 62/PUU-XXII/2024, and relevant scholarship concerning the separation of powers, judicial review, judicial activism, restraint, and the doctrines of positive and negative legislation. The findings reveal that while judicial law-making can emerge as an organic consequence of constitutional adjudication, its legitimacy is strictly bounded by constitutional authority, interpretive necessity, the preservation of legislative discretion, institutional competence, and the doctrinal weight of the court's legal reasoning. Consequently, the five guidelines set forth in Decision No. 62/PUU-XXII/2024 are most accurately conceptualized as constitutional directives rather than legislative substitutes, provided they function as outer parameters that preserve meaningful policy-making space for the legislature

Unduhan

Data unduhan tidak tersedia.

Referensi

Asshidiqie, Jimly. “Konstitusi dan Konstitusionalisme Indonesia, Jakarta: Konstitusi Press, 2006

Dramanda, Wicaksana. “Menggagas Penerapan Judicial Restraint Di Mahkamah Konstitusi”. Jurnal Konstitusi 11 (4) (2016) 617-31. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1141.

Efendi, Muhammad Alief Farezi, Muhtadi Muhtadi, and Ahmad Saleh. “Positive Legislature Decisions by the Constitutional Court: Putusan Positive Legislature Oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi”. Jurnal Konstitusi 20 (4) (2023) 622-39. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk2044.

Firdinal, Ziffany. 2016. “Perubahan Makna Pasal 6A Ayat (2) UUD 1945”. Jurnal Konstitusi 10 (4): (2016) 649-674. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1045

Hakiki, Yuniar Riza, and Taufiqurrahman Taufiqurrahman. “The Idea of Structuring National Legislation Based on The Ratio of Decidendi & Obiter Dictum Constitutional Court Decision: Gagasan Penataan Legislasi Nasional Berbasis Ratio Decidendi Dan Obiter Dictum Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi”. Jurnal Konstitusi 20 (1): (2023) 78-99. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk2015.

Hanan, Djayadi, Tri Sulistianing Astuti, and Luthfi Widagdo Eddyono. “Electoral Reform Through the Indonesian Constitutional Court: Constitutionality of Presidential Candidacy Threshold in Indonesia: Reformasi Elektoral Melalui Mahkamah Konstitusi: Konstitutionalitas Ambang Batas Pencalonan Presiden Di Indonesia”. Jurnal Konstitusi 22 (2): (2025) 260-92. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk2223.

Harahap, Muhamad Kholis. “Berubahnya Pendirian Hakim Mahkamah Konstitusi Tentang Presidential Threshold”. Buletin Konstitusi, 5(2). (2024) https://doi.org/10.30596/konstitusi.v5i2.23306

Kelsen, Hans, “General Theory of Law and State”, diterjemahkan oleh Anders Wedberg, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1945

Mardani, Retno Eko, Rengga Kusuma Putra, Fifiana Wisnaeni, Aprista Ristyawati, and Satriya Nugraha. “Judicial Activism and Constitutional Norm Creation in Indonesia’s 2024 Elections”. JURNAL USM LAW REVIEW 9 (4): (2026) 2274-93. https://doi.org/10.26623/julr.v9i4.14177.

Maulidi, M. Agus. "Menyoal Kekuatan Eksekutorial Putusan Final dan Mengikat Mahkamah Konstitusi Questioning the Executorial Force on Final and Binding Decision of." Jurnal Konstitusi 16.2 (2019): 339-362. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1627

Saragih, Geofani Milthree, Mirza Nasution, and Eka NAM Sihombing. “Judicial Review by the Constitutional Court: Judicial Activism Vs. Judicial Restraint in the Perspective of Judicial Freedom: Judicial Review Oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi: Judicial Activism Vs. Judicial Restraint Dalam Perspektif Kebebasan Kehakiman”. Jurnal Konstitusi 22 (1): (2025) 039-065. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk2213.

Satriawan, Iwan, and Tanto Lailam. “Open Legal Policy Dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Dan Pembentukan Undang-Undang”. Jurnal Konstitusi 16 (3): (2019) 559-84. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1636.

Situmeang, Selvi Christina, Ardilafiza Ardilafiza, and Ari Wirya Dinata. “Inconsistency of the Constitutional Court Regarding the Minimum Age Requirement for Presidential and Vice-Presidential Candidates: Inkonsistensi Mahkamah Konstitusi Terkait Syarat Minimal Usia Calon Presiden Dan Wakil Presiden”. Jurnal Konstitusi 21 (4): (2024) 609-34. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk2145.

Sulastri, Dewi, and Abu Sanmas. “The Constitutional Court As a Positive Legislator: Implications of Decisions on the Principle of Checks and Balances in Indonesia: Mahkamah Konstitusi Sebagai Positive Legislator: Implikasi Putusan Terhadap Prinsip Checks and Balances Di Indonesia”. LITIGASI 26 (2). Bandung, Indonesia: (2025) 272-315. https://doi.org/10.23969/litigasi.v26i2.21999.

Sundariwati, Ni Luh Dewi. "Judicial Activism: Between Protecting Constitutional Supremacy or Transitioning to Juristocracy; Judicial Activism: Diantara Melindungi Supremasi Konstitusional Atau Transisi Menuju Juristocracy." Jurnal Konstitusi 21.3 (2024): 432-447. 10.31078/jk2135

Sunny, Ismail. “Pergeseran Kekuasaan Eksekutif”, Jakarta : Penerbit Aksara baru, 1986

Wibowo, Mardian. 2016. “Menakar Konstitusionalitas Sebuah Kebijakan Hukum Terbuka Dalam Pengujian Undang-Undang”. Jurnal Konstitusi 12 (2): (2016) 196-216. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1221.

LAWS AND REGULATIONS

Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia. Putusan Nomor 90/PUU-XXI/2023.

Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia. Putusan Nomor 62/PUU-XXII/2024.

Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia. Putusan Nomor 60/PUU-XXII/2024.

Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia. Putusan Nomor 70/PUU-XXII/2024.

Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia. Putusan Nomor 98/PUU-XXIII/2025.

Republik Indonesia, Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945

Republik Indonesia, Undang-Undang Nomor 24 Tahun 2003 tentang Mahkamah Konstitusi sebagaimana diubah dengan Undang-Undang Nomor 7 Tahun 2020.

Republik Indonesia. Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945.

Republik Indonesia. Undang-Undang Nomor 7 Tahun 2017 tentang Pemilihan Umum.

Republik Indonesia. Undang-Undang Nomor 24 Tahun 2003 tentang Mahkamah Konstitusi sebagaimana telah diubah terakhir dengan Undang-Undang Nomor 7 Tahun 2020.

Republik Indonesia. Undang-Undang Nomor 48 Tahun 2009 tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman.

Republik Indonesia. Undang-Undang Nomor 12 Tahun 2011 tentang Pembentukan Peraturan Perundang-undangan sebagaimana diubah dengan Undang-Undang Nomor 13 Tahun 2022.