THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT’S INCONSISTENCY IN ADJUDICATING CASES ON THE AGE REQUIREMENT FOR VICE-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29123/jy.v18i1.718Keywords:
judicial inconsistency, age requirement, vice-presidential candidatesAbstract
The Constitutional Court’s inconsistency in adjudicating judicial review cases concerning the age requirement for vice-presidential candidates has set a precedent that undermines the Constitutional Court’s integrity and credibility. Judgment Number 90/PUU-XXI/2023 has attracted significant attention because, on the same day, the Constitutional Court rendered two judgments concerning substantially similar issues relating to the age requirement for vice-presidential candidates yet reached different rulings. This situation raises questions regarding the factors underlying the Constitutional Court’s inconsistency in adjudicating such cases. This study aims to analyse the cause of this inconsistency, and to formulate the appropriate ruling consistent with the legal reasoning of the constitutional court justices. This study employs a normative legal research method using a prescriptive approach through an analysis of the legal reasoning underpinning the judgment. The findings indicate that Judgment Number 90/PUU-XXI/2023 should have been limited to the office of governor, as this represented the common ground among the five constitutional justices who voted to grant the petition in part. Accordingly, the ruling should read: “at least 40 years of age or has served or is serving as a governor.” This study concludes that Constitutional Court’s inconsistency stems from three principal factors: the inconsistent application of the open legal policy doctrine, the judicialization of politics in judicial decision-making, and a conflict of interest arising in Judgment Number 90/PUU-XXI/2023. Accordingly, it is necessary to strengthen the standards for the application of the open legal policy doctrine and to enhance oversight mechanisms for potential conflicts of interest to safeguard the consistency of judicial decisions, institutional integrity, and public confidence in the Constitutional Court.
References
Ajie, R. (2016). Batasan pilihan kebijakan pembentuk undang-undang (Open legal policy) dalam pembentukan peraturan perundang-undangan berdasarkan tafsir putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia, 13(2), 111-120.
Arto, M. (2004). Praktek perkara perdata pada pengadilan agama. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
Budahu, M. A. S. I. (2024). Legal standing pemohon terkait pengajuan judicial review di Mahkamah Konstitusi. Jurnal Media Hukum, 12(1), 10-28. https://doi.org/10.59414/jmh.v12i1.636.
Budhiati, I. (2020). Mahkamah Konstitusi dan kepastian hukum pemilu: Tafsir Mahkamah Konstitusi terhadap UUD NKRI Tahun 1945 untuk kepastian hukum pemilu. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika.
Fajrian, M., & Kurniawan. (2021). Perbandingan pemilihan umum presiden dalam ketatanegaraan Republik Indonesia dan Republik Turki. Jurnal Ilmiah Mahasiswa Bidang Hukum Kenegaraan, 5(1), 18-25.
Fikra, M. I. (2023). Conflict of interest dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 90/PUU-XXI/2023 tentang pengujian Undang-Undang Nomor 7 Tahun 2017 tentang Pemilihan Umum. Tanfidziy: Jurnal Hukum Tata Negara dan Siyasah, 2(2), 179-190.
Hardianto, H., Sakti, S. W. K., & Meliza, M. (2024). Masalah batas usia calon presiden dan calon wakil presiden: Studi open legal policy dalam Putusan MK No. 90 90/PUU-XXI/2023. Jurnal Supremasi, 14(1), 15-27. https://doi.org/10.35457/supremasi.v14i1.3313.
Hasan, I. R. (2022). Pertimbangan hakim atas tindak pidana pencurian dengan modus carding berdasarkan Undang-Undang Nomor 19 Tahun 2016 tentang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik. Jurnal Ilmiah Advokasi, 10(2), 113-131. https://doi.org/10.36987/jiad.v10i2.2693.
Isnantiana, N. I. (2019). Hukum dan sistem hukum sebagai pilar negara. Jurnal Hukum Ekonomi Syariah, 2(1), 19-35. https://doi.org/10.30595/jhes.v2i1.4470.
Kurniawan, M. B., & Refiasari, D. (2024). Transformation of the constitutional justices tenure after the Constitutional Court’s new act: Transformasi masa jabatan hakim konstitusi pasca perubahan Undang-Undang Mahkamah Konstitusi. Jurnal Konstitusi, 21(1), 18-34. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk2112.
Lina, A. A., & Aji, A. B. (2024). Akibat hukum putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 90/PUU-XXI/2023 terhadap sistem demokrasi di Indonesia. Jurnal Hukum In Concreto, 3(1), 57-71. https://doi.org/10.35960/inconcreto.v3i1.1314.
Nelson, M. J., & Driscoll, A. (2023). Accountability for court packing. Journal of Law and Courts, 11(2), 290-311. https://doi.org/10.1017/jlc.2022.14.
Neuerkirchen, J. P. (2013). Plurality decisions, implicit consensuses, and the fifth-vote rule under Marks v. United States. Widener Law Review, 19, 389-440.
Pane, O. S., & Raharja, I. B. M. (2024). Putusan ultra petita Mahkamah Konstitusi terkait judicial review syarat pencalonan presiden dan wakil presiden (Analisis Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 90/PUU-XXI/2023. Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia, 21(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.54629/jli.v21i1.1376.
Perdana, A., & Imam, M. (2023). Judisialisasi politik dalam putusan MK terkait batas usia cawapres dalam pilpres 2024. Jurnal Pengawasan Pemilu, 8(3): 69-92.
Putra, A., & Saiful. (2024). Conflict of interest ketua hakim Mahkamah Konstitusi telaah Putusan Nomor 90/PUU-XXI/2023. Journal of Excellence Humanities and Religiosity, 1(2), 99-116. https://doi.org/10.34304/joehr.v1i2.214.
Razak, A. (2023). Reformulasi pemimpin usia muda sebagai calon presiden dan wakil presiden: Tinjauan ius onstituendum. Risalah Hukum, 19(2), 61-75. https://doi.org/10.30872/risalah.v19i2.1339.
Rifai, A. (2010). Penemuan hukum. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika.
Sirait, T. Y., Naibaho, B. M. E., Simamora, J., & Simatupang. L. D. (2020). Inkonsistensi putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi terhadap keberadaan Komisi Pmberantasan Korupsi sebagai lembaga negara independen. Nommensen Journal of Legal Opinion, 1(1), 1-26.
Sukma, G. G. M. (2020). Open legal policy peraturan perundang-undangan bidang politik dalam putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi (Studi terhadap putusan MK bidang politik tahun 2015-2017). Lex Renaissance, 5(1),1-19. https://doi.org/10.20885/JLR.vol5.iss1.art1.
Susianto, S. (2023). Mahkamah Konstitusi: Etika kehakiman dan kendaraan politik penguasa. Binamulia Hukum, 12(2), 459-471. https://doi.org/10.37893/jbh.v12i2.695.
Suteki & Taufani, G. (2018). Metodologi penelitian hukum (Filsafat, teori, dan praktik). Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada.
Thalib, A. R. (2018). Wewenang Mahkamah Konstitusi dan implikasinya dalam sistem ketatanegaraan Republik Indonesia. Bandung: PT Citra Aditya Bakti.
Tim Penyusun Hukum Acara Mahkamah Konstitusi. (2010). Hukum acara Mahkamah Konstitusi. Jakarta: Sekretariat Jenderal dan Kepaniteraan Mahkamah Konstitusi.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 M Beni Kurniawan, Sri Ayu Ramadani
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
