RECALL ASWANTO: TERTUTUPNYA RUANG DISAGREEMENT ANTARA PEMBENTUK UNDANG-UNDANG DAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI

Titon Slamet Kurnia

doi:10.24246/jrh.2023.v7.i2.p143-162

Authors

Titon Slamet Kurnia Fakultas Hukum Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24246/jrh.2023.v7.i2.p143-162%20

Keywords:

Recall , House of Representative , Constitutional Court, Disagreement

Abstract

This article discusses the recall directed to Justice Aswanto of the Constitutional Court during his tenure by the House of Representatives (DPR). The DPR recalls Justice Aswanto due to its disagreement with his judicial performance. According to the law, the Constitutional Court Justices may only be removed from office during his/her tenure through the Ethical Council of the Constitutional Court. This article argues that the recall is inconsistent with the principle of security of tenure and, therefore, contradicts the principle of judicial independence. Unfortunately, this issue is not the main problem. The primary issue is that the legislature has no room to disagree with the Constitutional Court's interpretation in reviewing the constitutionality of legislation. This issue arises because the Constitution, UUD 1945, allocates the finality of the constitutional review mechanism in the judiciary. In solving the issue, this article refers to the Canadian model of constitutional review. The concept of the Canadian model is a judicial review with legislative finality.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Buku

Bickel AM, The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics (ed. 2, Yale University Press 1986).

Bulmer E, Judicial Tenure, Removal, Immunity and Accountability (ed. 2, International IDEA 2017).

Kurnia TS, Interpretasi Hak-Hak Asasi Manusia oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia: The Jimly Court 2003-2008 (ed. 1, Penerbit Mandar Maju 2015).

McIntyre J, The Judicial Function: Fundamental Principles of Contemporary Judging (ed. 1, Springer 2019).

Redish MH, Judicial Independence and the American Constitution: A Democratic Paradox (ed. 1, Stanford University Press 2017).

Shetreet S, ‘Independence and Accountability of the Judiciary: Comparative Analysis of the Theories and the Realities with Lessons for the Asia-Pacific’ in H.P. Lee and M Pittard (eds) Asia-Pacific Judiciaries: Independence, Impartiality and Integrity (ed. 1, Cambridge University Press 2018).

Tamanaha BZ, On the Rule of Law (ed. 1, Cambridge University Press 2004).

Walters MD, ‘The British Legal Tradition in Canadian Constitutional Law’ in P Oliver, P Macklem, ND Rosiers (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Canadian Constitution (ed. 1, Oxford University Press 2017).

Yamin M, Naskah Persiapan Undang-Undang Dasar 1945: Jilid I (ed. 1, Jajasan Prapantja 1959).

Jurnal

Albert R, ‘The Difficulty of Constitutional Amendment in Canada’ 2015 53(1) Alberta Law Review.

Bárd P, ‘In Courts We Trust, or Should We? Judicial Independence as the Precondition for the Effectiveness of EU Law’ (2021) 27(1-3) European Law Journal.

Bateup C, ‘The Dialogue Promise: Assessing the Normative Potential of Theories of Constitutional Dialogue’ (2006) 71(3) Brooklyn Law Review.

Cromwell TA, ‘Aspects of Constitutional Judicial Review in Canada’ (2020) 46(5) South Carolina Law Review.

Dijkstra S, ‘The Freedom of the Judge to Express His Personal Opinions and Convictions under The ECHR’ (2017) 13(1) Utrecht Law Review.

Earle CS, ‘The American Judicial Review Quagmire: A Canadian Proposal’ (1993) 68(4) Indiana Law Journal.

Fraser CA, ‘Constitutional Dialogues between Courts and Legislatures: Can We Talk?’ (2005) 14(3) Forum Constitutionnel.

Friedman B, ‘Dialogue and Judicial Review’ (1993) 91(4) Michigan Law Review.

Gluck AE and Huberfeld N, ‘What is Federalism in Healthcare For? (2018) 70(6) Stanford Law Review.

Hirschl R, ‘Weak Courts, Strong Rights: Judicial Review and Social Welfare Rights in Comparative Constitutional Law: Book Review’ (2008) 40(1) Ottawa Law Review.

Kurnia TS, ‘Sebuah Kerangka Teoretis Hubungan Institusional Berbasis Konstitusionalisme’ (2020) 50(2) Jurnal Hukum dan Pembangunan.

_____, ‘Menguji Ketangguhan Realisme: Kritik terhadap Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 14/PUU-XI/2013 Pasca Pemilu Serentak 2019’ (2022) 19(1) Jurnal Konstitusi.

_____, ‘Mahkamah Agung dan Supremasi Konstitusi: Diskresi Yudisial dalam Penerapan Undang-Undang’ (2022) 34(1) Mimbar Hukum.

Lazarus RJ, ‘The (Non)Finality of Supreme Court Opinions (2014) 128(2) Harvard Law Review.

Leckey R and Mendelsohn E, ‘The Notwithstanding Clause: Legislatures, Courts and the Electorate’ (2022 Fall) 72 University of Toronto Law Journal.

Mack K and Anleu SR, ‘The Security of Tenure of Australian Magistrates’ 30 (2) Melbourne University Law Review.

Rahdert MC, ‘Comparative Constitutional Advocacy’ (2007) 56(3) American University Law Review.

Singh MP, ‘Securing the Independence of the Judiciary – The Indian Experience’ (2000) 10(2) Indiana International and Comparative Law Review.

Thayer JB, ‘The Origin and Scope of the American Doctrine of Constitutional Law’ (1893) 7(3) Harvard Law Review.

Webber G, ‘Notwithstanding Rights, Review or Remedy? On the Notwithstanding Clause and the Operation of Legislation’ (2021 Spring) 71 University of Toronto Law Journal.

Disertasi

Davies GJ, The Legitimising Role of Judicial Dialogue between the United Kingdom Courts and the European Court of Human Rights (PhD thesis, Cardiff University 2017).

Kahana T, The Partnership Model of the Canadian Notwithstanding Mechanism: Failure and Hope (SJD thesis, University of Toronto 2000).

Sigalet GT, Dialogue and Domination: A Theory of Judicial Review (PhD thesis, Princeton University 2018).

Peraturan Perundang-Undangan

Undang-Undang Nomor 7 Tahun 2020 tentang Perubahan Ketiga atas Undang-Undang Nomor 23 Tahun 2003 tentang Mahkamah Konstitusi.

Putusan MK

Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia Nomor 90/PUU-XVIII/2020, Mahkamah Konstitusi, 20 Juni 2022.

Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia Nomor 96/PUU-XVIII/2020, Mahkamah Konstitusi, 15 Juni 2022.

Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia Nomor 100/PUU-XVIII/2020, Mahkamah Konstitusi, 20 Juni 2022.

Koran Online

Nugraheny DE, ‘Jokowi Resmi Lantik Guntur Hamzah Jadi Hakim MK Pengganti Aswanto’ Kompas.com (Jakarta 23 November 2022) <https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2022/11/23/09455801/jokowi-resmi-lantik-guntur-hamzah-jadi-hakim-mk-pengganti-aswanto> accessed 1 Desember 2022.

Suhardi G, ‘Editorial: DPR Recall Aswanto’ Media Indonesia (Jakarta 3 Oktober 2022) <https://mediaindonesia.com/podiums/detail_podiums/2570-dpr-recall-aswanto> accessed 1 Desember 2022.

Utami N, ‘Hakim MK Aswanto ‘Dicopot’, Ketua Komisi III: Produk DPR Dia Anulir’ Detiknews (Jakarta 30 September 2022) <https://news.detik.com/berita/d-6321198/hakim-mk-aswanto-dicopot-ketua-komisi-iii-produk-dpr-dia-anulir> accessed 1 Desember 2022.