FINALITY OF INDONESIAN CONSTITUTIONAL COURT DECISION IN REGARD TO JUDICIAL REVIEW

Suwarno Abadi

doi:10.22146/jmh.15862

FINALITY OF INDONESIAN CONSTITUTIONAL COURT DECISION IN REGARD TO JUDICIAL REVIEW

https://doi.org/10.22146/jmh.15862

Suwarno Abadi^(1*)

(1) Constitutional Law Department, Faculty of Law Universitas Wijaya Putra, Surabaya
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract

This article examines the constitutional status of Constitutional Court’s decisions constitutionally guaranteed as final. This status very critical because it could lead Constitutional Court to the judicial supremacy position. This article argues against this possibility. The status of Constitutional Court’s decisions should be critized on the basis that its finality is prima facie, not absolute. As a solution, this article takes a position called departmentalism which means that court and legislature are not supreme in their authority to interpret the constitution. Artikel ini membahas tentang status konstitusional putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi yang dijamin konstitusi bersifat final. Status tersebut sangat kritikal karena dapat mengarahkan Mahkamah Konstitusi ke posisi supremasi yudisial. Artikel ini berargumen tidak setuju atas kemungkinan tersebut. Oleh karena itu, status putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi perlu dikritisi dengan dasar bahwa finalitasnya tersebut bersifat “prima facie”, tidak absolut. Sebagai solusinya, artikel ini mengambil posisi departementalisme yang memiliki pengertian bahwa pengadilan dan legislator tidak memiliki supremasi atas kewenangan untuk melakukan interpretasi konstitusi.

Keywords

Constitutional Court’s decisions; finality; departmentalism; putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi; finalitas; departementalisme

Full Text:

Untitled

References

A. Books

Altman, Andrew, 2001, Arguing about Law, Wadsworth Publishing Co., Belmont- California.

Ginsburg, Tom, 2003, Judicial Review in New Democracies: Constitutional Courts in Asian Cases, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Goldsworthy, Jeffrey, 2010, Parliamentary Sovereignty: Contemporary Debates, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Hamilton, Alexander, et al., 2003, The Federalist with Letters of Brutus (Terence Ball ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Kurnia, Titon Slamet, 2013, Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia: Sang Penjaga HAM (The Guardian of Human Rights), Alumni, Bandung.

McIlwain,CharlesHoward,1947,Constitutionalism: Ancient and Modern, Cornell University Press, New York-Ithaca.

Witthington, Keith E., 2007, Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy: The President, the Supreme Court and Constitutional Leadership in U.S. History, Princeton University Press, New Jersey.

Bickel, Alexander M., 1986, The Least Dangerous

B. Article and Research Journal

Butt, Simon, “Conditional Constitutionality, Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics, Second Edition, Yale University Press, New Haven.

Pragmatism and the Rule of Law”, Legal Studies Research Paper – Sydney Law School, No. 09/28, 2009.

Calabresi, Steven G., “The Tradition of the Written Constitution: Text, Precedent and Burke”, Alabama Law Review, Vol. 57, 2006.

Eskridge, Jr., William N., “Overriding Supreme Court Statutory Interpretation Decisions”, Yale Law Journal, Vol. 101, 1991.

Friedman, Barry, “The History of the Countermajoritarian Difficulty, Part One: The Road to Judicial Supremacy”, New York University Law Review, Vol. 73, 1998.

Rubin, Edward, “Judicial Review and the Right to Resist”, Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 97, 2008.

Soeroso, Fajar Laksono, “Aspek Keadilan dalam Sifat Final Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi”, Jurnal Konstitusi, Vol. 11, No. 1, March 2014.

Widiss, Deborah A., “Shadow Precedents and the Separation of Powers: Statutory Interpretation of Congressional Overrides,” Notre Dame Law Review, Vol. 84, 2009.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/jmh.15862