PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI MELEBIHI KEWENANGAN
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29123/jy.v17i1.627Keywords:
batas substansi wewenang, ultra vires, non-ultra petita ruleAbstract
Putusan Nomor 91/PUU-XVIII/2020 pada amar pokok permohonan pada diktum ketiga, keempat, dan kelima melampaui kewenangan Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam memutus perkara pengujian formil undang-undang, sebagaimana ketentuan Pasal 51A ayat (4) jo. Pasal 57 ayat (2) Undang-Undang Mahkamah Konstitusi. Penelitian ini untuk menjustifikasi bahwa Mahkamah Konstitusi dilarang melakukan tindakan ultra vires atau melampaui kewenangannya ketika memutus perkara pengujian undang-undang. Berdasarkan latar belakang tersebut, penelitian ini untuk menjawab dua permasalahan, yaitu: (1) apakah Putusan Nomor 91/PUU-XVIII/2020 melebihi batas kewenangan Mahkamah Konstitusi?; (2) apa implikasi hukum putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi yang melebihi batas kewenangan berdasarkan undang-undang? Penelitian ini menggunakan tipe penelitian hukum doktrinal dengan pendekatan peraturan perundang-undangan dan pendekatan kasus. Penelitian menghasilkan dua simpulan. Pertama, Putusan Nomor 91/PUU-XVIII/2020 adalah putusan ultra vires karena wewenang Mahkamah Konstitusi berdasarkan Pasal 51A ayat (4) jo. Pasal 57 ayat (2) Undang-Undang Mahkamah Konstitusi telah jelas dan tidak ambigu, hanya untuk menyatakan pembentukan undang-undang tidak memenuhi ketentuan pembentukan undangundang berdasarkan UUD NRI 1945 dan undang-undang dimaksud tidak mempunyai kekuatan hukum mengikat. Kedua, implikasi hukum putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi yang melampaui wewenang merupakan putusan yang sah dan bukan batal demi hukum, karena tidak akan ada putusan pengadilan yang dapat menyatakan putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi batal demi hukum.
References
Buku
Barak, A. (2005). Purposive in interpretation in law. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bradley, A. W., & Ewing, K. D. (2007). Constitutional and administrative law. 14 th Edition. Edinburgh: Pearson Education.
Brown, L. N., & Bell, J. S. (1998). French administrative law. Fifth Edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Chand, H. (1994). Modern jurisprudence. Selangor Darul Ehsan: International Law Book Services.
Craig, P. P. (2003). Administrative law. Fifth Edition. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
Hage, J. (2014). Foundation. In Hage, J., & Akkermans, B. (Eds.). Introduction to law. Dordrecht: Spriner.
Kelsen, H. (1949). General theory of law and state. Translated by Anders Wedberg. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mertokusumo, S. (2007). Penemuan hukum suatu pengantar. Yogyakarta: Liberty.
Singh, M. P. (1985). German administrative law in common law perspective. Berlin: Springer.
Jurnal
Abadi, S. (2015, September). Ultra petita dalam pengujian undang-undang oleh mahkamah konstitusi. Jurnal Konstitusi, 12(3), 587-603.
Abduli, E. (2015). Invalidity of administrative acts. European Journal of Research and Reflection in Management Sciences, 3(3), 80-85.
Bansal, O., & Singh, M. (2022, September). Doctrine of ultra vires: application in administrative law. Supremo Amicus, 31.
Baude, W., & Sachs, S. E. (2017, February). The law of interpretation. Harvard Law Review, 130(4), 1079-1147.
Boulanger, C. (2020). The comparative sociology of legal doctrine: Thoughts on a research program. German Law Journal, 21, 1362-1377.
Clermont, K. M. (2016, Spring). Res judicata as requisite for justice. Rutgers University Law Review, 68, 10671139.
Cohen, E. (2021, January). The jurisdiction of the constitutional court. Constitutional Court Review, 11(1), 433481. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2989/CCR.2021.0016.
Collins, D. (2020, Spring). Judicial review & parliamentary supremacy. Judicature, 104(1), 44-49.
Congressional Research Service. (2022, May). Statutory interpretation: Theories, tools, and trends. CRS Report Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress, 1-49.
__________________________. (2023, March). Statutory interpretation: Theories, tools, and trends. CRS Report Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress, 1-62.
Dent, C. (2017). A law student-oriented taxonomy for research in law. Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, 48, 371-388.
Eig, L. M. (2014, September 24). Statutory interpretation: General principles and recent trends. Congressional Research Service, 1-55.
Endicott, T. (2020, March). Authentic interpretation. Ratio Juris, 33(1), 6-23.
European Parliament. (2019, July). The role of constitutional courts, a comparative law perspective, Canada: The supreme court. European Parliamentary Research Service, 640(134), 1-41.
Feldman, D. (2014, February). Error of law and the effects of flawed administrative decisions and rules. Legal Studies Research Paper Series, 18, 1-53.
Forsyth, C. (2001, June/July). The legal effect of unlawful administrative acts: The theory of the second actor explained and developed. Amicus Curiae, 35, 20-23.
Freund, D., & Price, A. (2017). On the legal effects of unlawful administrative action. African Law Journal, 134(1), 184-208.
Gawas, V. M. (2017, September). Doctrinal legal research method a guiding principle in reforming the law and legal system towards the research development. International Journal of Law, 3(5), 128-130.
Germain, C. M. (2003). Approaches to statutory interpretation and legislative history in France. Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, 13(195), 195-206.
Grant, J. A. (2017). Reason and authority in administrative law. Cambridge Law Journal, 76(3), 1-39.
Harding, A. (2017, April). The fundamentals of constitutional courts. International IDEA Constitution Brief, 1-8.
Harrison, J. (2023). Remand without vacatur and the ab initio invalidity of unlawful regulations in administrative law regulations in administrative law. Brigham Young University Law Review, 48(7), 2077-2150.
Hasani, E. (2020). Judicial review of democracy. maintenance of democracy as a functionalist mission in the jurisprudence of the constitutional court of kosovo. Südosteuropa, 68(2), 530-553.
Henrico, R. (2020, January). The functus officio doctrine and invalid administrative action in south African administrative law: A flexible approach. Speculum Juris, 34(2), 116-129.
Hutchinson, T., & Duncan, N. (2012). Defining and describing what we do: Doctrinal legal research. Deakin Law Review, 17(1), 83-119.
Khokhar, F. (2022). The abrogation of ultra vires doctrine of company law by the english courts. Business and Economics Journal, 13(6), 1-4.
Konca, P. (2021). Servants or masters? Linguistic aids in legal interpretation. Ius Humani, 10(1), 73-102.
Langford, P., & Bryan, I. (2013, March). Hans Kelsen’s concept of normative imputation. Ratio Juris, 26(1), 85110.
Lee, E. T. (2003). The dubious concept of jurisdiction. Hastings Law Journal, 54(6), 1613-1640.
Leleno, M. S. (2020). The scope of adjudication in cases of pecuniary compensation for the harm suffered–comments in light of the resolution of the supreme court of 11 April 2019 (III CZP 105/18, BSN 2019, no. 4, p. 8). Studia Iuridica Lublinensia, XXIX(4), 279-306.
Lelieur, J. (2013). ‘Transnationalising’ ne bis in idem: How the rule of ne bis in idem reveals the principle of personal legal certainty. Utrecht Law Review, 9(4), 198-210.
Mafora, D. (2023). Whose constitutional jurisdiction is it anyway? Courts of a similar status to the high court and other tribunals. Constitutional court review, 13, 327-362.
Majeed, N., Hilal, A., & Khan, A. N. (2023). Doctrinal research in law: Meaning, scope and methodology. Bulletin of Business and Economics, 12(4), 559-563.
Middleton, J. (2016). Statutory interpretation: Mostly common sense? Melbourne University Law Review, 40(2), 626-656.
Mirić, M. K. (2016). A critical look at the subjective and objective purposes of contract in aharon barak’s theory of interpretation. Baltic Journal of Law & Politics, 9(2), 1-22.
Nasrawin, L. K. (2016, fall). Protecting human rights through constitutional adjudication-jordan as a case study. Digest of Middle East Studies, 25(2), 264-284.
Nickerson, A. (2021). Ultra-APA ultra vires review: implied equitable actions for statutory violations by federal officials. Columbia Law Review, 121(2521), 2521-2562.
Ortiz, P. C. (2020). The dilemmas of constitutional courts and the case for a new design of kelsenian institutions. Law and Philosophy, 39, 617-655.
Pesudovs, A. (2018). The civil procedure principles as the essential basis for undisputed enforcement of obligations. SHS Web of Conferences, 51, 1-13.
Petric, D. (2021). How to make a unicorn or ‘there never was an “acte clair” in EU law’: Some remarks about case C-561/19 consorzio Italian management. Croatian Yearbook of European Law and Policy, 17, 307-328.
Polzin, M. (2022). Emotion and the vertical separation of powers: Ultra-vires review by national (constitutional) courts, and EU and international law. ICL Journal, 16(3), 285-325.
Qtaishat, A. K. (2020). The doctrine of ultra vires: Commendable or condemnable! Asian Social Science, 16(5), 148-153.
Rubaie, A., et al. (2014, Maret). Putusan ultra petita mahkamah konstitusi. Jurnal Konstitusi, 11(1), 86-108.
Schwartz, B. (1998). Fashioning an administrative law system. University of New Brunswick Law Journal, 38, 59-74.
Shasivari, J. (2019). Restricted judicial activism of constitutional court of the republic of north Macedonia regarding protection of human rights and freedoms. Acta Universitatis Danubius, 15(1), 200-2013.
Solan. L. M. (2018). The interpretation of legal language. Annual Review of Linguistics, 4, 337-355.
Spaak, T. (2019). A challenge to Bix’s interpretation of Kelsen and Hart’s views on the normativity of law. Revus Journal for Constitutional Theory and Philosophy of Law, 1-8.
Stempel, J. W. (2021, Fall). What is the meaning “plain meaning”? Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Law Journal, 56(3), 551-620.
Tonkov, E. E., et al. (2020, May-Aug). The legal nature of decisions of constitutional courts of Russia and foreign countries and investigating its psychological consequences. Propósitos y Representaciones, 8(2), 1-7.
Venice Commission. (2015, June). Amicus curiae brief on the non ultra petita rule in criminal cases for the constitutional court of Georgia. Council of Europe Opinion, 804, 2-15.
Williams, R. C. (2022). Jurisdiction as power. The University of Chicago Law Review, 89(7), 1719-1792.
Yasin, I. F. (2018). Keadilan substantif dalam ultra petita putusan mahkamah konstitusi. Justica Islamica, 15(1), 13-26.
Sumber lainnya
Luenendonk, M. (2016). Legal implication. Diakses dari https://www.cleverism.com/lexicon/legal-implicationdefinition/.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Citation Check
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Jurnal Yudisial
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
FORMULIR COPYRIGHT TRANSFER
Naskah ini asli dan penulis mengalihkan Hak Cipta naskah di atas kepada Jurnal Yudisial, jika dan ketika naskah ini diterima untuk dipublikasikan.
Setiap orang yang terdaftar sebagai penulis pada naskah ini telah berkontribusi terhadap substansi dan intelektual dan harus bertanggung jawab kepada publik. Jika di masa mendatang terdapat pemberitahuan pelanggaran Hak Cipta merupakan tanggung jawab Penulis, bukan tanggung jawab Jurnal Yudisial.
Naskah ini berisi karya yang belum pernah diterbitkan sebelumnya dan tidak sedang dipertimbangkan untuk publikasi di jurnal lain.
