•  
  •  
 

Abstract

This article discusses legal issue pertaining to institutional relationship between the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court in case of constitutional interpretation, particularly the bindingness of the Constitutional Court’s opinion over the Supreme Court. Responding the issue, this article conveys departmentalist view, and rejects judicial supremacist view within the Constitutional Court in prescribing the constitutional interpretation authority. In line with departmentalism, this article argues that the Supreme Court should be given authority in constitutional interpretation, concurrent with the Constitutional Court. It is further argued that constitutional interpretation should be viewed as constitutional discourse in which the Supreme Court should be allowed to participate within its ratione materiae jurisdiction.

Bahasa Abstract

Artikel ini mendiskusikan isu hukum terkait dengan hubungan institusional antara Mahkamah Konstitusi dan Mahkamah Agung dalam interpretasi konstitusi, khususnya kekuatan mengikat pendapat yudisial Mahkamah Konstitusi kepada Mahkamah Agung. Tulisan ini dalam posisi departmentalist, dan menolak supremasi Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam hal alokasi kewenangan dalam interpretasi konstitusi. Sesuai dengan pandangan departmentalism, maka tulisan ini berargumen bahwa Mahkamah Agung harus diberikan kewenangan interpretasi konstitusi konkuren dengan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Sebagai implikasinya, tulisan ini berargumen lebih lanjut bahwa interpretasi konstitusi harus dipandang sebagai proses diskursus konstitusional di mana Mahkamah Agung seyogianya dapat berpartisipasi sesuai lingkup kewenangan materialnya.

References

Buku

Altman, Andrew. Arguing About Law. Belmont-California: Wadsworth Publishing, 2001.

Barak, Aharon. The Judge in a Democracy. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2006.

Bax, C., dan G. Van der Tang. “Theses on Control in Constitutional Law” dalam Carla M. Zoethout, et.al., eds., Control in Constitutional Law. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1993.

Bencze, Mátyás, dan Gar Yein Ng. “Measuring the Unmeasurable?” dalam Mátyás Bencze dan Gar Yein Ng, eds., How to Measure the Quality of Judicial Reasoning. Switzerland: Springer, 2018.

Edlin, Douglas E. Judges and Unjust Laws: Common Law Constitutionalism and the Foundations of Judicial Review. Ann Arbor-Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, 2010.

Farber, Daniel A., dan Suzanna Sherry. Judgment Calls: Principle and Politics in Constitutional Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Hamilton, Alexander, James Madison dan John Jay. The Federalist Papers. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Hendrianto, Stefanus. Law and Politics of Constitutional Courts: Indonesia and the Search for Judicial Heroes. London: Routledge, 2018.

Klarman, Michael J. Unfinished Business: Racial Equality in American History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Kurnia, Titon Slamet. Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia: Sang Penjaga HAM (The Guardian of Human Rights. Bandung: Penerbit PT. Alumni, 2013.

_________________. Interpretasi Hak-Hak Asasi Manusia oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia: The Jimly Court 2003 – 2008. Bandung: Penerbit Mandar Maju, 2018.

MacCormick, Neil, Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978.

Marmor, Andrei. Interpretation and Legal Theory. Oxford-Portland: Hart Publishing, 2005.

McIlwain, Charles Howard. Constitutionalism: Ancient and Modern. New York: Cornell University Press, 1947.

Ratnapala, Suri, Jurisprudence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Sumaryono, E. Etika dan Hukum: Relevansi Teori Hukum Kodrat Thomas Aquinas,. Yogyakarta: Penerbit Kanisius, 2002.

Download

Share

COinS