The Constitutionality of the Constitutional Court's Role as a Negative Legislator: The Limits of the Constitutional Court's Authority in Judicial Review of Statutes Against the 1945 Constitution

Jefrianus Tamo Ama; Muhammad Junaidi; Endah Pujiastuti

doi:10.58421/gehu.v5i4.1889

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.58421/gehu.v5i4.1889

Authors

Jefrianus Tamo Ama Universitas Semarang
Muhammad Junaidi Universitas Semarang
Endah Pujiastuti Universitas Semarang

Keywords:

Constitutional Court, Constitutional Limits , Judicial Review of Laws, Negative Legislator, Positive Legislator

Abstract

The constitutional role of the Constitutional Court of Indonesia as a negative legislator has generated continuing scholarly debate, particularly regarding whether judicial decisions containing conditional interpretations amount to an exercise of positive legislative authority. However, no clear analytical framework has been consistently applied to distinguish constitutionally permissible constitutional interpretation from judicial law-making. This study examines the Constitutional Court's constitutional position as a negative legislator. It analyzes four landmark Constitutional Court Decisions No. 46/PUU-VIII/2010, No. 14/PUU-XI/2013, No. 91/PUU-XVIII/2020, and No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023 to determine the constitutional limits of judicial review under Article 24C of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. Employing normative legal research with statutory, conceptual, and case approaches, the study analyzes primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials using descriptive-analytical methods. The decisions are evaluated based on three analytical criteria: whether the Court merely invalidates unconstitutional statutory provisions, whether it formulates new legal norms or regulatory standards, and whether its reasoning substitutes for legislative policy choices. The findings demonstrate that the Constitutional Court constitutionally remains a negative legislator. Nevertheless, the degree of judicial intervention varies across the examined cases. While several decisions contain constitutional interpretations that guide future application of statutory provisions, not every conditional interpretation constitutes an exercise of positive legislative power. Rather, a decision should be regarded as reflecting positive-legislator characteristics only when the Court effectively creates new normative rules or replaces legislative policy choices. This study contributes an analytical framework for distinguishing legitimate constitutional interpretation from judicial law-making and argues that the Court's authority should continue to be exercised within the principles of judicial restraint, respect for open legal policy, and the constitutional limits established by Article 24C of the 1945 Constitution.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

D. G. Andiraharja, “Judicial review oleh mahkamah konstitusi sebagai fungsi ajudikasi konstitusional di Indonesia,” Khazanah Hukum, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 70–79, 2021.

D. Sulastri and A. Sanmas, “Implikasi Putusan Mahkaham Konstitusi Sebagai Positif Legislator Terhadap Prinsip Check And Balance: Mahkamah Konstitusi sebagai Positive Legislator: Implikasi Putusan terhadap Prinsip Checks and Balances di Indonesia,” LITIGASI, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 272–315, 2025.

A. B. Laksono and F. Anggriawan, “Analisis Yuridis Kewenangan Mahkamah Konstitusi Dalam Pengujian Undang-Undang Terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945,” Bhirawa Law Journal, vol. 6, no. 1, 2025.

S. H. Jimly Asshiddiqie, Konstitusi dan konstitusionalisme Indonesia. Sinar Grafika, 2021.

A. K. Nababan, M. Junaidi, K. Sudarmanto, and Z. Arifin, "Keabsahan Materi Muatan Terkait Uang Pesangon Dalam Peraturan Perundang-Undangan," Jurnal USM Law Review, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 314–330, 2022, doi: 10.26623/julr.v5i1.4808.

J. Asshiddiqie, “Hukum acara pengujian undang-undang,” 2006.

M. Junaidi, Hukum Konstitusi: Pandangan dan Gagasan Modernisasi Negara Hukum. Jakarta: RajaGrafindo Persada, 2017.

J. Asshiddiqie, "Perihal undang-undang di Indonesia," 2006.

Moh. Mahfud M, Konstitusi dan hukum dalam kontroversi isu. Rajawali Pers, 2009.

A. Jimly, “Pokok-Pokok Hukum Tata Negara Indonesia Pasca Reformasi,” PT. Bhuana Ilmu Populer, 2007.

B. Mahmud, M. Junaidi, A. P. Sihotang, and S. Soegianto, "Reposisi Kedudukan Justice Collaborator Dalam Upaya Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi," Jurnal USM Law Review, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 362–377, 2021, doi: 10.26623/julr.v4i1.3368.

M. A. F. Efendi, M. Muhtadi, and A. Saleh, “Positive Legislature Decisions by the Constitutional Court: Putusan Positive Legislature oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi,” Jurnal Konstitusi, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 622–639, 2023.

S. A.-H. Rambe, R. Sembiring, and E. Ikhsan, “Analisis Yuridis tentang Status Hak Waris Anak yang Lahir Diluar Perkawinan Sah Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 46/PUU-VIII/2010 dalam Perspektif Hukum Islam,” Jurnal Hukum Lex Generalis, vol. 6, no. 6, 2025.

C. W. Tanggono, K. Sudarmanto, M. Junaidi, and Z. Arifin, “Mekanisme Pembetukan Peraturan Daerah Yang Berkualitas di Pemerintah Daerah,” Journal Juridisch, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 216–230, 2023, doi: 10.55171/jj.v1i3.912.

B. S. Prabowo, “Menggagas Judicial Activism dalam Putusan Presidential Threshold di Mahkamah Konstitusi,” Jurnal Konstitusi, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 73–96, 2022.

A. Daharis, D. M. A. Herdatama, S. D. M. Yusuf, and S. Y. Pradana, “Kedudukan Anak Luar Kawin Dalam Perspektif Kompilasi Hukum Islam Dan Putusan MK,” Jurnal Kolaboratif Sains, vol. 8, no. 11, pp. 7334–7342, 2025.

R. W. G. Wora, T. Mulyani, and E. Pujiastuti, “Kewenangan Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara dalam Menguji Keputusan Mahkamah Konstitusi: Analisis Putusan Nomor 604/G/2023/PTUN. JKT: The Administrative Court's Authority in Reviewing Constitutional Court Decisions: An Analysis of Decision Number 604/G/2023/PTUN. JKT," Semarang Law Review (SLR), vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 367–384, 2026, doi: 10.26623/slr.v7i1.13576.

J. B. Thayer, "The Origin and Scope of the American Doctrine of Constitutional Law. 1," in Bills of Rights, Routledge, 2017, pp. 293–320.

A. P. Dewi, “Problematika Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Dalam Pengujian Undang-Undang,” Jurnal Ilmiah Mandala Education, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 243–248, 2017.

A. F. P. Sari and P. S. Raharjo, “Mahkamah Konstitusi sebagai negative legislator dan positive legislator,” Sovereignty, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 681–691, 2022.

H. Kelsen, Pure theory of law. Univ of California Press, 1967.

E. Yulistyowati, E. Pujiastuti, and T. Mulyani, “Penerapan Konsep Trias Politica Dalam Sistem Pemerintahan Republik Indonesia: Studi Komparatif Atas Undang Undang Dasar Tahun 1945 Sebelum Dan Sesudah Amandemen,” Jurnal Dinamika Sosial Budaya, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 328–338, 2016, doi: 10.26623/jdsb.v18i2.571.

H. Kelsen, General theory of law and state. Routledge, 2017.

S. Wulandari, P. Utari, F. R. Refin, M. Bagus, A. Fandik, and A. Thobary, “Peran Mahkamah Konstitusi sebagai pelaku sistem kekuasaan kehakiman di Indonesia,” Sosio Yustisia: Jurnal Hukum dan Perubahan Sosial, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 199–222, 2023.

M. Safitri and A. Wibowo, “Peranan Mahkamah Konstitusi Di Negara Indonesia (Mengenal Mahkamah Konstitusi),” Jurnal Penelitian Multidisiplin, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 71–76, 2023.

G. N. Hasanah and D. B. Kharisma, “Eksistensi Judicial Activism Dalam Praktik Konstitusi Oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi,” Sovereignty, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 734–744, 2022.

P. F. Wongkar, R. J. Mawuntu, and D. O. Setiabudhi, “Analisis yuridis kewenangan Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam melakukan pengujian undang-undang terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar di Indonesia,” Lex Et Societatis, vol. 9, 2021.