•  
  •  
 

Abstract

Under the Conditionally Constitutional Doctrine, the Indonesian Constitutional Court may declare that a provision of a statute is constitutional if it is read in a way described by the Constitutional Court. In practice, this doctrine allows the Constitutional Court to create new legal norms that might not be covered or even considered in the reviewed statute. The main question is: does the Constitutional Court have any legitimate reasons to use such doctrine? This is especially crucial because the Indonesian House of Representatives once banned the doctrine through amendment to Law No. 24 of 2003 on Constitutional Court in 2011 and shortly thereafter, the Constitutional Court declared that the amendment is unconstitutional. In this article, I will discuss the validity of the Conditionally Constitutional Doctrine through the lens of various theories of legal interpretation, and further conclude that given the nature of judicial review process, attempting to answer the above question from the perspective of traditional legal interpretation theories would not be fruitful. Instead, I would recommend using a pragmatic approach in dealing with the existence of the doctrine and offer certain aspects that can be further pursued by Indonesian legal researchers in order to improve the use of such doctrine.

Bahasa Abstract

Berdasarkan Doktrin Konstitusional Bersyarat, Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia dapat menyatakan bahwa ketentuan dari suatu undang-undang adalah konstitusional sepanjang dimaknai sesuai dengan apa yang dinyatakan oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi. Dalam prakteknya, doktrin ini memungkinkan Mahkamah Konstitusi untuk menciptakan norma hukum baru yang sebelumnya mungkin tidak dicakup atau bahkan dipertimbangkan dalam undang-undang yang diuji. Pertanyaan utamanya adalah: apakah Mahkamah Konstitusi memiliki alasan yang sah untuk menggunakan doktrin tersebut? Hal ini menjadi krusial khususnya mengingat Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Republik Indonesia pernah melarang penggunaan doktrin tersebut melalui amandemen atas Undang-Undang No. 24 Tahun 2003 tentang Mahkamah Konstitusi di tahun 2011, dan tak lama sesudahnya, Mahkamah Konstitusi menyatakan bahwa amandemen tersebut bertentangan dengan Konstitusi. Dalam makalah ini, penulis akan mendiskusikan keabsahan dari Doktrin Konstitusional Bersyarat dari sudut pandang berbagai teori interpretasi hukum, dan menyimpulkan bahwa mengingat sifat dari proses pengujian undang-undang, usaha untuk menjawab pertanyaan di atas dari perspektif teori interpretasi hukum tradisional tidak akan membuahkan hasil. Sebaliknya, penulis merekomendasikan untuk menggunakan pendekatan pragmatis dalam menyikapi keberadaan doktrin tersebut dan menyarankan beberapa aspek yang perlu ditelaah lebih jauh oleh para peneliti hukum di Indonesia guna memperbaiki penggunaan doktrin tersebut.

References

Books

Adler, Matthew D. Well-Being and Fair Distribution. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.

Adler, Matthew D. and Erick A. Posner. New Foundations of Cost-Benefit Analysis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006.

Alexy, Robert. A Theory of Legal Argumentation: The Theory of Rational Discourse as Theory of Legal Justification. Translated by Ruth Adler and Neil MacCormick. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Asshiddiqie, Jimly. Konsolidasi Naskah UUD 1945 Setelah Perubahan Keempat. Jakarta: Yarsif Watampone, 2003.

Barak, Aharon. Purposive Interpretation in Law. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005.

Bronsteen, John, Christopher Buccafusco, and Jonathan S. Masur. Happiness & the Law. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2015.

Burt, Robert A. The Constitution in Conflict. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992.

Chomsky, Carol. "The Story of Holy Trinity Church v. United States: Spirit and History in Statutory Interpretation." In Statutory Interpretation Stories, edited by William N. Eskridge, Jr., Phillip P. Frickey and Elizabeth Garret. New York: Foundation Press, 2011. 2-35.

Currie, David P. "Prolegomena for a Sampler: Extrajudicial Interpretation of the Constitution, 1789-1861." In Congress and the Constitution, edited by Neil Devins and Keith E. Whittington. Durham: Duke University Press, 2005. 18-38.

Friedman, Milton. Price Theory. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2008.

Greenawalt, Kent. Legal Interpretation: Perspectives from Other Disciplines and Private Texts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Hart, H.L.A. The Concept of Law. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.

Holmes Jr., Oliver Wendell. The Common Law. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2009.

Kaplow, Louis and Steven Shavell. Fairness versus Welfare. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002.

Kennedy, Duncan. A Critique of Adjudication. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997.

Komesar, Neil K. Imperfect Alternatives: Choosing Institutions in Law, Economics, and Public Policy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1994.

Kripke, Saul. Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1982.

Lamb, Brian, Susan Swain, and Mark Farkas, ed. The Supreme Court: A C-Span Book Featuring the Justices in Their Own Words. Philadelphia: Public Affairs, 2010.

Marmor, Andrei. "Can the Law Imply More Than It Says? On Some Pragmatic Aspects of Strategic Speech." In Philosophical Foundations of Language in the Law, edited by Andrei Marmor and Scott Soames. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. 83-104.

Mikva, Abner J. and Eric Lane. An Introduction to Statutory Interpretation and Legislative Process. New York: Aspen Publishers, 1997.

Mullainathan, Sendhil and Eldar Shafir. Scarcity: The New Science of Having Less and How It Defines Our Lives. New York: Picador, 2013.

Posner, Eric A. The Twilight of Human Rights Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.

Posner, Richard A. Economic Analysis of Law. 8th ed. New York: Aspen Publishers, 2011.

_______________. Overcoming Law. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995.

Raphael, Ray. Constitutional Myths: What We Get Wrong and How to Get It Right. New York: New Press, 2013.

Sarat, Austin and Thomas R. Kearns. "Writing History and Registering Memory in Legal Decisions and Legal Practices: An Introduction." In History, Memory, and the Law, edited by Austin Sarat and Thomas R. Kearns. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2002. 1-24.

Scalia, Antonin and Bryan A. Garner. Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts. St. Paul: Thomson/West, 2012.

Sunstein, Cass R. The Partial Constitution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994.

Thaler, Richard. Misbehaving: The Making of Behavioral Economics. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, inc., 2015.

Tushnet, Mark. "Marbury v. Madison and the Theory of Judicial Supremacy." In Great Cases in Constitutional Law, edited by Robert P. George. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000. 17-54.

Vermeule, Adrian. Judging Under Uncertainty: An Institutional Theory of Legal Interpretation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006.

Journals

Amar, Akhil Reed. “Intratextualism.” Harvard Law Review 112 no. 4 (1998-1999): 747-827.

Barnett, Randy E. “Interpretation and Construction.” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34 (2011): 65-72

Becker, Gary. “Irrational Behavior and Economic Theory.” The Journal of Political Economy 70, no. 1 (1962): 1-13.

Burke, David M. “The “Presumption of Constitutionality” Doctrine and the Rehnquist Court: A Lethal Combination for Individual Liberty.” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 18 (1994-1995): 73-173.

Coates IV, John C. “Cost-Benefit Analysis of Financial Regulation: Case Studies and Implications.” The Yale Law Journal 124 (2015): 1011.

Easterbrook, Frank H. “Do Liberals and Conservatives Differ in Judicial Activism?” University of Colorado Law Review 73 (2002): 1401-1416.

_______________. “Judicial Discretion in Statutory Interpretation.” Oklahoma Law Review 57 (2004): 1-20.

_______________. “Statutes Domain.” University of Chicago Law Review 50 (1983): 533-552.

_______________. “Textualism and the Dead Hand.” The George Washington Law Review 66 (1997-1998): 1119-1126.

_______________. “The Inevitability of Law and Economics.” Legal Education Review 1 (1989): 1-28.

_______________. “What’s So Special About Judges?” University of Colorado Law Review 61 (1990): 773-782.

Fallon Jr., Richard H. “The Meaning of Legal “Meaning” and Its Implications for Theories of Legal Interpretation.” The University of Chicago Law Review 82 (2015): 1235-1308.

Jellum, Linda D. “But That is Absurd! Why Specific Absurdity Undermines Textualism.” Brooklyn Law Review 76 (2010-2011): 917-939.

Metzger, Gillian E. and Trevor W. Morrison. “The Presumption of Constitutionality and the Individual Mandate.” Fordham Law Review 81 (2012-2013): 1715-1736.

Posner, Richard A. “Against Constitutional Theory.” New York University Law Review 73 (1998): 1-22.

_______________. “Statutory Interpretation – in the Classroom and in the Courtroom.” The University of Chicago Law Review 50 (1983): 800-822.

Shah, Anuj K., Eldar Shafir, and Sendhil Mullainathan. “Scarcity Frames Value.” Psychological Science 26, no. 4 (2015): 402-412.

Solan, Lawrence M. “The New Textualist’s New Text.” Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 38 (2004-2005): 2027-2062.

Sunstein, Cass R. “There is Nothing that Interpretation Just Is.” Constitutional Commentary 30 (2015): 193-212.

_______________ and Adrian Vermeule. “Interpretation and Institutions.” Michigan Law Review 101 (2002-2003): 885-951.

Thumma, Samuel A. and Jeffrey L. Kirchmeier. “The Lexicon Has Become a Fortress: The United States Supreme Court’s Use of Dictionaries.” Buffalo Law Review 47 (1999): 227-302.

Tribe, Laurence H. “Taking Texts and Structure Seriously: Reflections on Free-Form Method in Constitutional Interpretation.” Harvard Law Review 108 no. 6 (1995): 1221-1303.

Vermeule, Adrian. “Interpretive Choice.” New York University Law Review 75 (2000): 74-149.

_______________. “Saving Constructions.” The Georgetown Law Journal 85 (1996-1997): 1945-1977.

Statutes

Republik Indonesia. Undang-Undang tentang Mahkamah Konstitusi. UU No. 24 Tahun 2003, LN No. 98 Tahun 2003, TLN No. 4316.

_______________. Undang-Undang tentang Perubahan atas Undang-Undang Nomor 24 Tahun 2003 tentang Mahkamah Konstitusi. UU No. 8 Tahun 2011, LN No. 70 Tahun 2011, TLN No. 5226.

Court’s Decision

Mahkamah Konstitusi. “Putusan Perkara Nomor 003/PUU-III/2005.”

_______________. “Putusan Perkara Nomor No. 14-17/PUU-V/2007.”

_______________. “Putusan Perkara Nomor No. 10/PUU-VI/2008.”

_______________. “Putusan Perkara Nomor No. 48/PUU-IX/2011.”

Download

Share

COinS