Penambahan Kewenangan Constitutional Question di Mahkamah Konstitusi sebagai Upaya untuk Melindungi Hak-Hak Konstitusional Warga Negara

Abstract

Penyempurnaan sistem hukum dan konstitusi merupakan prasyarat untuk membangun negara demokrasi konstitusional di Indonesia. Dalam cabang kekuasan kehakiman, salah satu upaya untuk mencapai hal tersebut terkait dengan adanya gagasan pembentukan mekanisme pertanyaan konstitusional (constitusional question). Istilah constitutional question merujuk pada suatu mekanisme pengujian konstitusionalitas di Mahkamah Konstitusi yang diajukan oleh seorang hakim di pengadilan umum yang merasa ragu-ragu terhadap konstitusionalitas suatu undang-undang yang digunakan dalam perkara yang sedang ditanganinya. Artikel ini membahas mengenai kemungkinan dibangunnya mekanisme constitutional question di Indonesia dengan alternatif implementasinya. Metodologi yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini berupa yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan kualitatif dan menggunakan bahan kepustakaan. Dari hasil penelitian ini disimpulkan bahwa terdapat urgensi untuk menambahkan kewenangan constitutional question kepada Mahkamah Konstitusi. Dengan adanya mekanisme tersebut, putusan hakim di pengadilan umum yang dinilai bertentangan dengan konstitusi dan dianggap melanggar hak konstitusional warga negara dapat dihindari. Kemudian, objek dan ruang pengujian terhadap peraturan perundangundangan menjadi semakin luas dan pelanggaran hak konstitusional terhadap warga negara dapat dipulihkan. Apabila constitutional question akan diterapkan di Indonesia, maka dasar kewenangan constitutional question sebaiknya diatur melalui perubahan konstitusi. Namun, hal tersebut dapat juga dilakukan dengan merevisi Undang-Undang Mahkamah Konstitusi, penafsiran konstitusi yang dituangkan di dalam putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi, ataupun perluasan legal standing untuk lembaga pengadilan sebagai salah satu pemohon constitutional review. Selain itu, perlu juga diatur mengenai kualifikasi pemohon constitutional question dan pembatasan waktu penanganan perkaranya oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi.Improving the legal and constitutional system is a prerequisite for building a constitutional democratic state in Indonesia. In a constitutional adjudication system, one of the efforts to achieve that goal is related to an idea to establish a constitutional question mechanism. The term of constitutional question refers to a mechanism for examining the constitutionality of a law in the Constitutional Court lodged by an ordinary judge who has a doubt regarding the constitutionality of the law applied in the case that is being handled by him/her. This article discusses the possibility of establishing a constitutional question mechanism in Indonesia with its alternative implementations. The methodology used in this research was normative juridical writing with qualitative approach and library research. The research results found the urgency for expanding the authority of constitutional question to the Constitutional Court. With the existence of such mechanism, ordinary court decisions that are contrary to the constitution and violate the constitutional rights of the citizens can be avoided. Moreover, the scope of constitutional review of the legislation becomes expansive and constitutional rights violations can be recovered. If the constitutional question will be applied in Indonesia, the basis of the authority of constitutional question should be regulated through a constitutional amendment. However, it can be applied also by revising the Constitutional Court Law, the constitutional interpretation set forth in the Constitutional Court decision or the extension of legal standing for ordinary courts as one of the applicants for constitutional review. In addition, it is necessary to regulate the applicant’s qualification of constitutional question and time limitation for handling constitutional question cases by the Constitutional Court.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 12 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.