@mastersthesis{digilib75246,
           month = {January},
           title = {PROBLEMATIKA KEWENANGAN HAKIM MAHKAMAH AGUNG DALAM PUTUSAN NOMOR 23 P/HUM/2024 TENTANG SYARAT USIA CALON KEPALA DAERAH PERSPEKTIF SIYASAH QADA?IYYAH},
          school = {UIN SUNAN KALIJAGA YOGYAKARTA},
          author = {NIM.: 23203012019 Muhammad Zaenul Arif},
            year = {2026},
            note = {Prof. Dr. Ahmad Yani Anshori. S.Ag., M.Ag.},
        keywords = {Kewenangan Mahkamah Agung, Pertimbangan Hukum, Putusan No. 23 P/HUM/2024, Siy{\=a}sah Qa{\d d}{\=a}?iyyah, Imam Al-Mawardi},
             url = {https://digilib.uin-suka.ac.id/id/eprint/75246/},
        abstract = {This study analyzes the authority and legal considerations of the Supreme Court (MA) Justices in Decision No. 23 P/HUM/2024 concerning the minimum age requirement for regional head candidates, and examines it from the perspective of Siy{\=a}sah Qa{\d d}{\=a}?iyyah (judicial politics) according to Imam Al-Mawardi. The MA ruling, which annulled the provision of Article 4 Paragraph (1) letter d of PKPU (General Election Commission Regulation) No. 9 of 2020, sparked controversy as it was deemed to have altered the age stipulation in Law No. 10 of 2016 and potentially served specific political interests.
This research is a normative legal study employing a descriptive-analytical approach. Data was collected through library research on primary legal materials (the 1945 Constitution, the Judicial Power Law, Law No. 10 of 2016, and MA Decision No. 23 P/HUM/2024) as well as secondary sources such as academic literature. Analysis was conducted jurisprudentially using the theory of authority (Jimly Asshiddiqie) and the theory of legal reasoning (Mahfud MD), and further scrutinized through the framework of Al-Mawardi's Siy{\=a}sah Qa{\d d}{\=a}?iyyah.
The findings indicate that: First, the MA's authority in this decision demonstrates inconsistency and potentially exceeds its attributive authority, as it substantively altered the age norm established by law. Second, the judges' legal reasoning in this ruling is assessed as being dominated by formal legal certainty considerations (at the time of registration) while overlooking substantive justice and the broader political-legal context. Third, from the perspective of Siy{\=a}sah Qa{\d d}{\=a}?iyyah, this decision indicates a weakening of the principles of judicial independence (istiql{\=a}l al-qa{\d d}{\=a}?) and impartial justice (al-?ad{\=a}lah), where the judges are perceived as not being entirely free from siyasah (political) intervention that could undermine public welfare (ma{\d s}la{\d h}ah ?{\=a}mmah).}
}