TY  - THES
N1  - Dr. Ahmad Patiroy, M.Ag.
ID  - digilib71155
UR  - https://digilib.uin-suka.ac.id/id/eprint/71155/
A1  - Lathifah Eka Luthfiyana, NIM.: 21103070059
Y1  - 2025/03/18/
N2  - The Constitutional Court Decision No. 1/PHPU.PRES-XXII/2024 regarding the dispute over the 2024 presidential election results marks a historical milestone with the emergence of the first dissenting opinion in the context of a presidential election in Indonesia. Three constitutional judges?Saldi Isra, Enny Nurbaningsih, and Arief Hidayat?expressed differing opinions from the majority ruling, particularly concerning President Joko Widodo?s involvement in the distribution of social assistance ahead of the election. The judges argued that such actions had the potential to influence voter preferences and create conflicts of interest that could undermine the principles of electoral fairness. This dissenting opinion highlights the importance of judicial independence and reinforces the role of the Constitutional Court as a guardian of democratic integrity. Moreover, this phenomenon reflects the evolving dynamics of Indonesia?s constitutional judiciary, which is increasingly open to diverse legal interpretations in the pursuit of democratic values and electoral justice. 
This research is a normative juridical study, conducted by examining primary and secondary legal materials. It employs a statute approach, case approach, and conceptual approach. The study analyzes the dissenting opinion in the Constitutional Court Decision No. 1/PHPU.PRES-XXII/2024 regarding the Dispute of the 2024 Presidential and Vice Presidential Election Results from the perspective of Siyasah Qada?iyyah. 
The findings show that the application of dissenting opinion in this Constitutional Court decision, when viewed through the lens of Siyasah Qada?iyyah, aligns with the Islamic legal framework that integrates political and judicial aspects, emphasizing the enforcement of justice based on the Qur?an, Sunnah, and ijma?. From this perspective, differences of opinion ( ikhtilaf ) among judges are not seen as deviations, but rather as a legitimate intellectual dynamic endorsed by Islam. This reflects the freedom of ijtihad and judicial independence in interpreting and applying the law. Historical evidence shows that the Prophet's companions and classical scholars frequently differed in legal opinions while remaining within the bounds of shar??ah. Therefore, dissenting opinions in judicial practice, including in the Constitutional Court, are acceptable as long as they aim to iv 

uphold justice and remain consistent with the fundamental principles of Islamic law. The concept of Siyasah Qada?iyyah provides legitimacy for legal diversity as a collective effort toward public welfare (ma?la?ah).
PB  - UIN SUNAN KALIJAGA YOGYAKARTA
KW  - Dissenting opinion
KW  -  Mahkamah Konstitusi
KW  -  Siyasah Qadha?íyyah
M1  - skripsi
TI  - DISSENTING OPINION PADA PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI REPUBLIK INDONESIA NOMOR 1/PHPU.PRES-XXII/ 2024 TENTANG PERSELISIHAN HASIL PEMILIHAN UMUM PRESIDEN DAN WAKIL PRESIDEN 2024 PERSPEKTIF SIYASAH QADHA?IYYAH
AV  - restricted
EP  - 126
ER  -