Electronic Theses and Dissertation

Pasal 249 sampai dengan pasal 252 uu pemda menyatakan bahwa pembatalan perda dapat dilakukan melalui kepmendagri, aturan ini didasarkan pada bunyi pasal 250 ayat (1) bahwa perda dan perkada sebagaimana dimaksud dalam pasal 249 ayat (1) dan (3) dilarang bertentangan dengan ketentuan peraturan perundang-undangan yang lebih tinggi, kepentingan umum, dan/atau kesusilaan. selanjutnya dijabarkan lebih lanjut dalam pasal 251 ayat (1) dimana perda provinsi dan pergub yang bertentangan dengan peraturan perundang- undangan yang lebih tinggi, kepentingan umum dan/atau kesusilaan dibatalkan oleh menteri. namun pasca dilakukannya judicial review oleh apkasi untuk perda kab/kota dan abda khair mufti, dkk untuk perda provinsi dan pergub, maka mk melalui putusannya nomor 137/puu-xiii/2015 memutuskan bahwa pasal 251 uu pemda yang mengatur mengenai kewenangan pembatalan perda kab/kota sudah tidak bisa lagi dibatalkan oleh mendagri atau gubernur. berikut pula putusan mk nomor 56/puu-xiv/2016 yang menyatakan bahwa pemerintah pusat tidak lagi memiliki kewenangan melakukan pembatalan perda. tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk mengkaji alasan hakim terhadap mekanisme pembatalan perda melalui putusan no. 137/puu-xiii/2015 dan 56/puu-xiii/2016, dan untuk mengkaji perbedaan pandangan hakim terhadap pembatalan perda melalui putusan no. 137/puu-xiii/2015 dan 56/puu- xiii/2016. jenis penelitian yang digunakan adalah penelitian hukum normatif. penelitian ini dilakukan dengan meneliti bahan pustaka yang terdiri dari bahan hukum primer, sekunder, dan tersier. pendekatan yang digunakan adalah pendekatan perundang-undangan dan pendekatan historis. berdasarkan hasil penelitian ini, putusan mk yang telah membatalkan kewenangan menteri dan gubernur dalam melakukan executive review terhadap perda dilatarbelakangi oleh dua pertimbangan, yaitu; pertama, hakim menganggap pasal 251 uu pemda telah menyimpangi logika negara hukum. dan kedua, pembatalan perda melalui executive review telah menegasikan fungsi ma. hakim mk menilai kewenangan menteri dan gubernur dalam melakukan executive review terhadap perda telah melanggar pasal 24a ayat (1) uud nri 1945 dan pasal 9 ayat (2) uu no. 12 tahun 2011. putusan mk no. 137/puu- xiii/2015 sepanjang mengenai perda kabupaten/kota, dan putusan mk no. 56/puu-xiv/2016 sepanjang mengenai perda provinsi tidak mempunyai kekuatan hukum mengikat. putusan tersebut diwarnai perbedaan pendapat dari empat hakim mk yang beralasan, bahwa; pertama, seharusnya perlu dihadirkan semangat pemberian otonomi yang seluas-luasnya kepada daerah. kedua, kewenangan kepala daerah dan dprd untuk membentuk perda adalah kewenangan atribusi, bukan peraturan delegasi dari undang-undang. ketiga, presiden adalah penanggungjawab pemerintahan tertinggi, sehingga merupakan kewajiban presiden untuk membatalkan perda yang cacat. keempat, norma yang memberi kewenangan kepada presiden melalui menteri dan gubernur untuk membatalkan perda inkonstitusional. dan kelima, tindakan pembatalan harus dibedakan dengan judicial review. kewenangan judicial review adalah bagian dari kewenangan kekuasaan, sedangkan pembatalan adalah bagian dari kekuasaan pemerintahan eksekutif. disarankan kepada pemerintah pusat dan/atau wakil pemerintah pusat di daerah untuk dapat melaksanakan hasil putusan mk no. 137/puu-xiii/2015 dan 56/puu-xiv/2016, dimana pembatalan perda seharusnya tidak dilakukan oleh pemerintah, melainkan oleh ma melalui judicial review. adapun dalam pembentukan perda, diperlukan pengawasan bertingkat hingga pusat agar tidak terjadi lagi pembatalan perda karena bertentangan dengan peraturan perundang- undangan lainnya. selanjutnya disarankan juga kepada lembaga legislatif dan eksekutif untuk dapat saling berkoordinasi terkait putusan mk no. 137/puu- xiii/2015 dan 56/puu-xiv/2016 sehingga praktek yang dilaksanakan perihal pembatalan terhadap perda tidak menyimpang dari ketentuan yang terlah berlaku pasca putusan mk yang bersifat final dan mengikat. kata kunci: putusan mahkamah konstitusi, pembatalan, peraturan daerah provinsi

Article 249 to Article 252 of the Local Government Law states that the annulment of local regulations can be conducted through the Ministry of Home Affairs Decree. This rule is based on Article 250 paragraph (1) that local regulations and Perkada as referred to in Article 249 paragraphs (1) and (3) are prohibited from contradicting the provisions of higher laws and regulations, public interests, and/or decency. Moreover, it is further elaborated in Article 251 paragraph (1) wherein Provincial Regulations and Governor Regulations that conflict with higher laws and regulations, public interest and/or morality are nullified by the Minister. However, after the Judicial Review by APKASI for District / City Regulations and Abda Khair Mufti, et al for Provincial Regulations and Pergub, the Constitutional Court through its decision number 137 / PUU-XIII / 2015 decided that Article 251 of the Local Government Law which regulates the authority to revoke District / City Regulations can no longer be annulled by the Minister of Home Affairs or the Governor. The following Constitutional Court verdict number 56/PUU-XIV/2016 also states that the central government no longer has the authority to nullify local regulations. The study aims to examine the judges' reasons for the mechanism of annulment of local regulations through Decisions No. 137/PUU-XIII/2015 and 56/PUU-XIII/2016, and to examine the differences in the judges' perspectives on the annulment of local regulations through Decisions No. 137/PUU-XIII/2015 and 56/PUU-XIII/2016. The theoretical research used is normative legal research. This research was conducted by examining library materials consisting of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. The approach used is the Legislative Approach and Historical Approach. Based on the results of this research, the Constitutional Court's decision that has annulled the authority of the Minister and Governor in conducting an executive review of local regulations is motivated by two considerations, namely; First, the judge considered that Article 251 of the Local Government Law deviated from the law of thought. Second, the annulment of Regional Regulations through executive review has negated the function of the Supreme Court. The Constitutional Court judges deem that the authority of the Minister and Governor in conducting an executive review of local regulations has violated Article 24A paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution and Article 9 paragraph (2) of Law No. 12/2011. Constitutional Court verdict number 137/PUU-XIII/2015 as far as regency/city regulations are concerned, and Constitutional Court verdict number 56/PUU-XIV/2016 as far as provincial regulations have no binding legal force. The ruling was characterized by a dissenting opinion from four Justices of the Court who reasoned that; First, the spirit of granting the widest possible autonomy to the regions should be presented. Second, the authority of the Regional Head and Legislative Council to form local regulations is an authority of attribution, not a delegated regulation from the Law. Thirdly, the President is the highest governmental authority, so it is his obligation to revoke flawed local regulations. Fourth, norms that authorize the President through Ministers and Governors to nullify unconstitutional local regulations. Fifth, nullification must be distinguished from judicial review. The authority of judicial review is part of the authority of power, while annulment is part of the power of executive government. The Central Government and/or the Representative of the Central Government in the regions are advised to be able to implement the results of Constitutional Court Decisions No. 137/PUU-XIII/2015 and 56/PUU-XIV/2016, where the annulment of local regulations should not be carried out by the government, but by the Supreme Court through Judicial Review. As for the formation of local regulations, multilevel supervision up to the center is needed so that there is no more cancellation of local regulations because they conflict with other laws and regulations. Furthermore, it is also recommended for the Legislative and Executive Institutions to be able to coordinate with each other regarding the Constitutional Court Decree No. 137 / PUU-XIII / 2015 and 56 / PUU-XIV / 2016 so that the practice carried out regarding the cancellation of local regulations does not deviate from the provisions that have been applied after the final and binding Constitutional Court Decision. Keywords: Constitutional Court Ruling, Annulment, Provincial Regulation.