RE-EVALUASI GAYA PENULISAN PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI

Bisariyadi Bisariyadi
  Arena Hukum, Vol 12, No 3 (2019),  pp. 402-422  
Viewed : 291 times

Abstract


Abstract

The demand for judicial institutions, especially the constitutional court, to provide strong legal arguments and considerations is part of the importance of legal reasoning which implies constitutional interpretation. The Court’s ruling is not merely on its holding rather more importantly its legal reasoning. Strong legal arguments are mostly influenced by the personal style of judges' writing. Type of arguments also effect the structure of the decision. This paper aims to discuss the writing of the decision of the Constitutional Court. This is a normative legal study which emphasize on academic literature as its reference and reviewing the Court’s decision with some part uses a comparative approach. The first section of this study reviews the functions and roles of the legal considerations of the Court’s decisions. The next section describes the influence of the judges’ personal writing style in a decision. The format and the structure of the decisions which affect the clarity and strength of the decisions is discussed in the last section. The results shows that there is a need for adjustment in the format and the structure of decision-making in the Constitutional Court since these elements give influence to the legitimacy and writing of Constitutional Court’s decision.


Abstrak

Tuntutan agar sebuah peradilan, terlebih peradilan konstitusi, memberikan argumentasi dan pertimbangan hukum yang kokoh merupakan bagian dari pentingnya penalaran hukum yang memuat penafsiran konstitusi. Putusan pengadilan tidak hanya terdiri dari bagian amar putusan melainkan yang lebih penting lagi adalah terletak pada pertimbangan hukumnya. Penyusunan pertimbangan hukum yang kuat dalam sebuah putusan dipengaruhi oleh gaya penulisan hakim secara pribadi dan berpengaruh pada susunan serta format sistematika putusan. Artikel ini bertujuan untuk membahas mengenai penulisan putusan di Mahkamah Konstitusi. Kajian ini merupakan penelitian hukum normatif yang menekankan pada studi literatur dan mengkaji putusan-putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi sebagai rujukan pokoknya, ditambah dengan pendekatan perbandingan hukum. Adapun sistematika penulisan ini terdiri dari bagian pertama yang mengulas tentang fungsi serta peran bagian pertimbangan hukum dalam putusan. Bagian berikutnya mendeskripsikan pengaruh gaya penulisan pribadi hakim dalam sebuah putusan. Format dan sistematika putusan juga memberi pengaruh pada kejelasan dan kuatnya argumentasi putusan sebagaimana akan dibahas pada bagian terakhir. Sebagai kesimpulan, kajian ini menekankan pada kebutuhan akan perlunya penyesuaian dalam format dan sistematika penulisan putusan di Mahkamah Konstitusi sebab keseluruhan unsur-unsur ini memberi warna dan pengaruh pada legitimasi dan penulisan putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi.


Keywords


Constitutional Court decision; merits; judicial review.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Buku

Bickel, Alexander.The Least Dangerous Branch. Newton: Vail-Ballou Press, 1986.

Dunnewold, Mary L., etall. Judicial Clerkships: A Practical Guide. Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 2010.

Ferejohn, John dan Pasquino, Pasquale.“Constitutional Courts as Deliberative Institutions: Towards an Institutional Theory of Constitutional Justice”. dalam Constitutional Justice: East And West: Democratic Legitimacy And Constitutional Courts In Post-Communist Europe In A Comparative Perspective, ed. Wojciech Sadurski. Great Britain: Kluwer Law International, 2002.

Garner, Brian. (ed). Black’s Law Dictionary. ed.8th. United States: West Publishing co, 2004.

Goldstein, Joseph. The Intelligible Constitution. England: Oxford University Press, 1992.

Hadjon, Philipus M. Dan Tatiek Sri Djatmika. Argumentasi Hukum. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press, 2008.

Kirby, Michael. The Judges. Sydney: ABC, 1983.

Kitto, Sir Frank.“Why Write Judgments?”. dalam A Matter of Judgment: Judicial Decision-Making and Judgment Writing.ed. Ruth Sheard. Sydney: Judicial Commission of New South Wales, 2001

Mahoney, Dennis. “Judgment Writing: Form and Function”. dalam A Matter of Judgment: Judicial Decision-Making and Judgment Writing, ed. Ruth Sheard. Sydney: Judicial Commission of New South Wales, 2001

Mak, Elaine. Judicial Decision-Making in a Globalised World: A Comparative Analysis of the Changing Practices of Western Highest Court. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2013.

Palguna, I Dewa Gede. Pengaduan Konstitusional: Upaya Hukum terhadap Pelanggaran Hak-Hak Konstitusional Warga Negara. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2013

Lapak Ponsel. (2020). Lapak Ponsel - Situs Informasi Terkini Tentang Gadget Dan Tekno. [online] Available at: https://www.lapakponsel.my.id/ [Accessed 12 Jan. 2020].

Sweet, Alec Stone.Governing with Judges: Constitutional Politics in Europe. Oxford University Press, 2000.

Jurnal

Brock, Beau James. “Mr. Justice Antonin Scalia: A Renaissance of Positivism and Predictability in Constitutional Adjudication”. Louisiana Law Review Vol. 51, No. 3, (January 1991): 623-650.

Buchanan., Jr., Paul H. “For Structured, Digestible, Streamlined Judicial Opinions”. American Bar Association Journal Vol. 60, (Oct. 1974): 1249-1251.

Chemerinsky, Erwin. “The Supreme Court, Public Opinion, and The Role of The Academic Commentator”. South Texas Law Review Vol. 40, (1999): 943-956.

Cserne, Péter. “Policy Arguments Before Courts: Identifying and Evaluating Consequence-Based Judicial Reasoning”. Humanitas Journal of European Studies Vol. 3, (2009): 9-30.

Dyevre, Arthur dan Jakab, Andras. “Foreword: Understanding Constitutional Reasoning”. German Law Journal Vol. 14, No. 8, (2013): 983-1015.

Farganis, Dion.“Do Reasons Matter? The Impact of Opinion Content on Supreme Court Legitimacy”. Political Research Quarterly. Vol. 65, No. 1, (2012): 206-216.

Goutal, Jean Louis.“Characteristics of Judicial Style in France, Britain and the USA”. the American Journal of Comparative Law Vol. 24, No. 1, (1976): 43-72.

Jakab, Andras.“Judicial Reasoning in Constitutional Courts: A European Perspective”. German Law Journal Vol.14, No. 08, (2013): 1215-1278.

Kelemen, Katalin. “Dissenting Opinions in Constitutional Courts”. German Law Journal Vol.14, No.8, (2013): 1345-1372.

Lebovitz, Gerald, etall. “Ethical Judicial Opinion Writing”. The Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics Vol. 21, (2008): 237-309.

Mattila, Heikki ES.“Cross-References in Court Decisions: A Study in Comparative Legal Linguistics”. dalam Tarja Salmi-Tolonen, Iris Tukianen dan Richard Foley (eds). “Law and Language in Partnership and Conflict”, Lapland Law Review (Special Issue) Vol. 1, No. 1, (2011): 96-121.

Merkesinis, Basil.“Judicial Style and Judicial Reasoning in England and Germany”. Cambridge Law Journal Vol. 59, No. 2, (July 2000): 294-395.

Pinelli, Cesare.“Constitutional Reasoning and Political Deliberation”. German Law Journal Vol. 14, No. 8, (2013): 1171-1182.

Posner, Richard A. “Judges’ Writing Styles (And Do They Matter?)”. The University of Chicago Law Review Vol. 62, (1995): 1421-1451.

Roux, Theunis dan Siregar, Fritz. “Trajectories of Curial Power: The Rise, Fall and Partial Rehabilitation of the Indonesia Constitutional Court”. Australian Journal of Asian Law Vol. 16, No. 2, (2016): 1-21.

Sheppard, Jennifer. “The “Write” Way: A Judicial Clerk's Guide to Writing for the Court”. University of Baltimore Law Review Vol. 38, No. 1, (2008): 73-163.

Siregar, Fritz Edward. “Indonesia Constitutional Court Constitutional Interpretation Methodology (2003-2008)”. Constitutional Review Vol.1, No. 1, (May 2015): 1-27.

Vance, Ruth C., “Judicial Opinion Writing: An Annotated Bibliography”. The Journal of Legal Writing Institute Vol. 17, (2011): 197-231.

Vosskuhle, Andreas.“Preface to the German Law Journal’s Constitutional Reasoning Special Edition”. German Law Journal Vol. 14, No. 8, (2013): 979-982.

Widiarto, Aan Eko. Ali Safaat, Muchamad. dan Wibowo, Mardian. “Pemaknaan Norma Hak Asasi Manusia Dalam UUD 1945 Berdasarkan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi”. Arena Hukum Vol. 11, No. 2, (Agustus 2018): 369-387.

Internet

Fachreza, Ade Rizky. Meninjau Kembali Format Putusan Mahkamah Agung. http://leip.or.id/meninjau-kembali-format-putusan-mahkamah-agung/. Diakses19 Januari 2018.

Kirby, Michael. “Judicial Dissent – Common Law and Civil Law Tradition”. Law Quarterly Review. sebagaimana diunduh dari http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/speeches/former-justices/kirbyj/kirbyj_06.pdf. diakses 21 Januari 2018.

Masyarakat Pemantau Peradilan Indonesia. “Penyederhanaan Format Putusan, Penelitian 2015”. http://mappifhui.org/2016/01/25/laporan-penelitian-penyederhanaan-format-putusan-mahkamah-agung-ri/. Diakses 17 Januari 2018.

Putusan dan Peraturan Perundang-undangan

Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 9 Tahun 2017 Tentang Format (Template) dan Pedoman Penulisan Putusan/Penetapan Mahkamah Agung.

Peraturan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 13 Tahun 2008 tentang Pedoman Penulisan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi.

Putusan No. 006/PUU-II/2004 mengenai Pengujian Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 18 Tahun 2003 tentang Advokat.

Putusan Nomor 071/PUU-II/2004 dan 001-002/PUU-III/2005 tentang Pengujian atas Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan Dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang.

Putusan Nomor 6/PUU-VII/2009 tentang Pengujian Undang-Undang Nomor 32 Tahun 2002 tentang Penyiaran.

Undang-Undang Nomor 24 Tahun 2003 tentang Mahkamah Konstitusi, sebagaimana telah diubah dengan Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 2011.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2019 Arena Hukum

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.