ANALISIS PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI NOMOR 62/PUU-XXII/2024 TENTANG PRESIDENTIAL THRESHOLD BERDASARKAN OPEN LEGAL POLICY

Abstract

ABSTRAK

Pada skripsi ini, penulis mengangkat bagaimana arah pikir Hakim Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam memutus persoalan Norma yang mengatur mengenai presidential threshold Pilihan tema tersebut dilatar belakangi dengan adanya putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 62/PUU-XXII/2024 tentang Presidential threshold. Berdasarkan latar belakang tersebut, penulis mengangkat rumusan masalah sebagai berikut: 1. Apa ratio decidendi Hakim Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam Putusan Nomor 62/PUU-XXII/2024 tentang presidential threshold? 2. Bagaimana disenting opinion Hakim Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam Putusan Nomor 62/PUU-XXII/2024 tentang presidential threshold?. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian dengan menggunakan jenis penelitian hukum Yuridis normatif, karena penelitian ini ditujukan hanya pada peraturan- peraturan yang tertulis atau bahan-bahan hukum lain, dan lebih banyak dilakukan terhadap data yang bersifat sekunder yang ada diperpustakaan dan di akses melalui website.

Hasil penelitian ini, Bahwa dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 62/PUU-XXII/2024 Mahkamah membatalkan ketentuan presidential threshold dalam Pasal 222 UU 7/2017 Pemilu, Dalam pengujian pasal a quo sebelumnya Mahkamah Konstitusi menyatakan bahwa ketentuan presidential threshold adalah konstitusional dan dianggap sebagai open legal policy. kemudian setelah diuji Kembali, melalui putusan a quo Mahkamah konstitusi membatalkan pasal 222 UU 7/2017 Pemilu karena dinilai tidak mereprentasikan Pasal 6A ayat (2) UUD 1945, Pasal 27 ayat (1), Pasal 28C ayat (2), Pasal 28D ayat (1), dan Pasal 28I ayat (2) UUD NRI Tahun 1945 serta melanggar batasan open legal policy (moralitas, rasionalitas, dan ketidakadilan yang intolerable). Terhadap putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 62/PUU-XXII/2024, terdapat pendapat berbeda (dissenting opinion) dari dua orang Hakim Konstitusi, yaitu Hakim Konstitusi Anwar Usman dan Hakim Konstitusi Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh menyatakan bahwa para pemohon tidak memenuhi syarat karena hanya partai politik atau calon presiden yang berwenang mengajukan uji materi terhadap Pasal 222 UU 7/2017 Pemilu, kemudian Mahkamah Konstitusi semestinya mengembalikan pembahasan atas pasal a qou kepada DPR sebab ketentuan presidential threshol tersebut bersifat open legal policy.

Kata Kunci: Presidential Threshold, PEMILU, Mahkamah Konstitusi.

ABSTRACT

In this thesis, the author examines the reasoning of the Constitutional Court Justices in deciding on the legal norms regulating the presidential threshold. The choice of this theme is motivated by the Constitutional Court Decision Number 62/PUU-XXII/2024 concerning the presidential threshold. Based on this background, the author formulates the following research questions: 1. What is the ratio decidendi of the Constitutional Court Justices in Decision Number 62/PUU-XXII/2024 on the presidential threshold? 2. What are the dissenting opinions of the Constitutional Court Justices in Decision Number 62/PUU-XXII/2024 on the presidential threshold? This research is a normative juridical legal study, as it focuses solely on written regulations or other legal materials, and is largely based on secondary data obtained from library research and accessed through websites.

The results of this study show that in Constitutional Court Decision Number 62/PUU-XXII/2024, the Court annulled the provision on the presidential threshold as stipulated in Article 222 of Law Number 7 of 2017 on General Elections. In previous reviews of the a quo article, the Constitutional Court had declared the presidential threshold provision constitutional and considered it part of an open legal policy. However, upon reexamination, through the a quo decision, the Constitutional Court annulled Article 222 of Law 7/2017, reasoning that it does not reflect the principles contained in Article 6A paragraph (2), Article 27 paragraph (1), Article 28C paragraph (2), Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. It was also deemed to violate the limits of open legal policy—namely morality, rationality, and intolerable injustice. Regarding Constitutional Court Decision Number 62/PUU-XXII/2024, there were dissenting opinions from two Constitutional Justices, Anwar Usman and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh. They argued that the petitioners lacked legal standing, as only political parties or presidential candidates have the authority to file for judicial review of Article 222 of Law 7/2017. Furthermore, they stated that the Constitutional Court should have referred the discussion of the a quo article back to the House of Representatives (DPR), since the regulation on the presidential threshold falls within the scope of open legal policy.

Keywords: Presidential Threshold, General Election, Constitutional Court.