Electronic Theses and Dissertation

Latar belakang penelitian ini didasarkan pada adanya kesenjangan nyata antara aturan yang tertulis yaitu konstitusional Indonesia sebagai negara hukum yang menjamin kemerdekaan kekuasaan kehakiman sebagaimana ditegaskan pada Pasal 1 ayat (3) jo. Pasal 24 ayat (1) UUD NRI 1945 serta mandat seleksi hakim konstitusi yang objektif, transparan, partisipatif, dan akuntabel (Pasal 19 dan Pasal 20 UU MK), dengan realitas praktik pengisian jabatan yang cenderung bersifat politis dan tertutup. Kesenjangan norma ini mengemuka konkrit dalam kasus pencabutan Keputusan DPR Nomor 11/DPR.RI/I/2025-2026 atas persetujuan Inosentius Samsul dan penetapan Adies Kadir sebagai pengganti, hanya sehari setelah uji kelayakan tanpa pengumuman publik sebelumnya.

Penulisan ini bertujuan menganalisis konstitusionalitas kewenangan DPR mengusulkan dan mencabut persetujuan calon hakim konstitusi, serta mengevaluasi kesesuaian proses penggantian tersebut dengan prinsip transparansi, partisipasi publik, objektivitas, dan akuntabilitas Pasal 19 jo. Pasal 20 ayat (2) Undang-Undang Nomor 24 Tahun 2003 sebagaimana diubah Undang-Undang Nomor 7 Tahun 2020 tentang Mahkamah Konstitusi.

Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah penelitian hukum yuridis normatif yang bersifat deskriptif-analitis, dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan, konseptual, dan kasus. Penelitian ini menggunakan bahan hukum primer, sekunder, dan tersier yang diperoleh melalui studi kepustakaan. Analisis data dilakukan secara kualitatif dengan menelaah norma hukum, doktrin, dan teori yang relevan.

Hasil penulisan menunjukkan bahwa kewenangan DPR secara atributif terbatas pada tindakan mengusulkan yang bersifat selesai (final), sehingga pencabutan tanpa dasar kewenangan yang tegas, tanpa proses deliberatif yang memadai, dan tanpa alasan yang objektif serta kontemporer, dapat dipandang telah memenuhi kualifikasi sebagai tindakan ultra vires. Selain itu, proses penggantian juga tidak memenuhi keempat prinsip yaitu transparansi, partisipasi publik, objektivitas, dan akuntabilitas, mengingat DPR selaku pihak yang menguasai seluruh proses seleksi tidak menunjukkan keterbukaan yang memadai untuk membuktikan kepatuhannya.

Penelitian ini menyarankan agar DPR dan Presiden selaku pembentuk undang-undang merumuskan norma eksplisit dalam UU MK mengenai syarat dan prosedur pencabutan persetujuan calon hakim konstitusi, serta agar DPR memperkuat mekanisme transparansi dan partisipasi publik dalam pelaksanaan uji kelayakan dan kepatutan calon hakim konstitusi pada masa mendatang.

The background of this study is based on the existence of a clear gap between written rules namely, the Constitution of Indonesia as a state governed by the rule of law that guarantees the independence of the judiciary, as affirmed in Article 1, paragraph (3), in conjunction with Article 24, paragraph (1), of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and the mandate for an objective, transparent, participatory, and accountable (Articles 19 and 20 of the Constitutional Court Law), and the reality of the appointment process, which tends to be political and opaque. This normative gap was concretely revealed in the case of the revocation of House of Representatives Decision No. 11/DPR.RI/I/2025-2026 regarding the approval of Inosentius Samsul and the appointment of Adies Kadir as his successor, just one day after the fitness hearing and without prior public announcement. This paper aims to analyze the constitutionality of the DPR’s authority to propose and revoke the approval of Constitutional Court justice nominees, as well as to evaluate the compliance of the replacement process with the principles of transparency, public participation, objectivity, and accountability as stipulated in Article 19 in conjunction with Article 20(2) of Law No. 24 of 2003, as amended by Law No. 7 of 2020 on the Constitutional Court. The research method employed is a descriptive-analytical normative legal study, utilizing legislative, conceptual, and case-based approaches. This study draws on primary, secondary, and tertiary legal sources obtained through a literature review. Data analysis was conducted qualitatively by examining relevant legal norms, doctrines, and theories. The findings indicate that the House of Representatives’ (DPR) authority is, by its very nature, limited to proposing final legislative acts; therefore, a repeal lacking a clear legal basis, without an adequate deliberative process, and without objective and contemporary justifications may be deemed to constitute an ultra vires act. Furthermore, the replacement process also failed to meet the four principles transparency, public participation, objectivity, and accountability given that the DPR, as the party in control of the entire selection process, did not demonstrate sufficient openness to prove its compliance. This study recommends that the House of Representatives and the President, as the lawmakers, formulate explicit provisions in the Constitutional Court Law regarding the requirements and procedures for revoking approval of constitutional court judge nominees, and that the House of Representatives strengthen mechanisms for transparency and public participation in the conduct of fitness and propriety hearings for constitutional court judge nominees in the future.