Electronic Theses and Dissertation

Penelitian ini dilatar belakangi dengan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 135/PUU-XXII/2024 yang memberikan perubahan terhadap skema dari pemilihan umum serentak untuk tahun berikutnya. Dimana akibat putusan tersebut membangun stigma bahwa Mahkamah Konstitusi telah keluar dari batasanya sebagai negative legislator.
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis kewenangan Mahkamah Konstitusi sebagai negative legislator dalam perspektif teori judicial restraint, serta menilai konsistensi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 135/PUU-XXII/2024 dengan prinsip-prinsip pembatasan kewenangan yudisial.
Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normative dengan menggunakan tiga pendekatan, yaitu pendekatan undang-undang, pendekatan konseptual dan pendekatan kasus, serta menggunakan tiga jenis bahan hukum.
Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa kewenangan Mahkamah Konstitusi sebagai negative legislator pada prinsipnya terbatas pada pengujian dan pembatalan norma undang-undang yang bertentangan dengan UUD 1945 tanpa kewenangan untuk membentuk norma baru. Namun, melalui Putusan Nomor 135/PUU-XXII/2024, Mahkamah Konstitusi telah mengeluarkan putusan yan bersifat positif legislator. Tindakan tersebut melampaui prinsip judicial restraint, terutama karena Mahkamah Konstitusi turut memasuki wilayah kebijakan legislasi (open legal policy)
Mahkamah Konstitusi sebagai negative legislator seharusnya menjalankan fungsi pengujian undang-undang dalam koridor judicial restraint, yaitu menahan diri, tidak menciptakan norma baru, serta menghormati peran cabang legislatif sebagai positive legislator. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 135/PUU-XXII/2024 menunjukkan adanya inkonsistensi dengan doktrin judicial restraint karena Mahkamah Konstitusi bertindak melebihi batas konstitusionalnya dengan melakukan norm creation.
Kata Kunci: Mahkmaha Konstitusi, Negative Legislator, Judicial Restraint

This research is motivated by the Constitutional Court Decision Number 135/PUU-XXII/2024, which introduced changes to the scheme of simultaneous general elections for future electoral periods. As a result of this decision, a perception has emerged that the Constitutional Court has exceeded its limits as a negative legislator. This study aims to analyze the authority of the Constitutional Court as a negative legislator from the perspective of judicial restraint theory and to assess the consistency of Constitutional Court Decision Number 135/PUU-XXII/2024 with the principles limiting judicial power. This research employs a normative juridical method using three approaches: the statutory approach, the conceptual approach, and the case approach. It also utilizes three types of legal materials. The findings indicate that the Constitutional Court’s authority as a negative legislator is, in principle, limited to reviewing and invalidating statutory provisions that are inconsistent with the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, without the authority to create new norms. However, through Decision Number 135/PUU-XXII/2024, the Constitutional Court issued a ruling that has the characteristics of a positive legislator. This action exceeds the principle of judicial restraint, particularly because the Court entered the domain of legislative policy (open legal policy). As a negative legislator, the Constitutional Court should exercise its power of judicial review within the framework of judicial restraint by exercising self-restraint, refraining from creating new norms, and respecting the role of the legislature as the positive legislator. Constitutional Court Decision Number 135/PUU-XXII/2024 demonstrates inconsistency with the doctrine of judicial restraint because the Court acted beyond its constitutional boundaries by engaging in norm creation. Keywords: Constitutional Court, Negative Legislator, Judicial Restraint.