TINJAUAN YURIDIS AMBANG BATAS PENCALONAN PRESIDEN SEBAGAI KEBIJAKAN HUKUM TERBUKA

Rosmawati, NIM.: 19103070024 (2023) TINJAUAN YURIDIS AMBANG BATAS PENCALONAN PRESIDEN SEBAGAI KEBIJAKAN HUKUM TERBUKA. Skripsi thesis, UIN SUNAN KALIJAGA YOGYAKARTA.

Preview	Text (TINJAUAN YURIDIS AMBANG BATAS PENCALONAN PRESIDEN SEBAGAI KEBIJAKAN HUKUM TERBUKA) 19103070024_BAB-I_IV-atau-V_DAFTAR-PUSTAKA.pdf - Published Version Download (3MB) | Preview
	Text (TINJAUAN YURIDIS AMBANG BATAS PENCALONAN PRESIDEN SEBAGAI KEBIJAKAN HUKUM TERBUKA) 19103070024_BAB-II_sampai_SEBELUM-BAB-TERAKHIR.pdf - Published Version Restricted to Registered users only Download (4MB) | Request a copy

Abstract

This study aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the juridical dimension attached to the assessment of the presidential threshold as an open legal policy from a justice perspective. A significant case study in this regard revolves around the Constitutional Court's statement that the threshold for the nomination of president and vice president is an open legal policy. This declaration exposed inherent weaknesses, particularly in terms of limiting the potential of a wider range of presidential and vice-presidential candidates, thereby fostering a climate that encourages limited selection or even the formation of a single pair of candidates. As a result, this limitation eliminates the opportunity to make maximum use of the provisions outlined in Article 6A Paragraphs (3) and (4) of the 1945 Constitution, resulting in violations or at least potential violations that cannot be imposed by the honorable Constitutional Court. In this context, the presidential threshold is a threat to the democratic system. The research method used in this thesis is normative juridical, using the statutory approach, comparative law and conceptual approach. The data processing method is done by identifying, reducing, and editing data, then analyzing it descriptively-qualitatively. The results of this study conclude that the Constitutional Court holds the main authority to review laws against the 1945 Constitution, but does not have clear parameters for determining open legal policies. The indecisiveness of the Constitutional Court between judicial activism and judicial restraint creates uncertainty, which results in decisions not having a strong constitutional basis and leading to erroneous results. As a result, the Constitutional Court showed inconsistency in assessing the constitutionality of laws labeled as open legal policies. In particular, when the Constitutional Court declares the presidential threshold as an open legal policy, it has the potential to weaken the system by limiting presidential and vice-presidential candidates, thereby encouraging oligarchic politics and violating the democratic principles outlined in the constitution.

Share this knowledge with your friends :

Actions (login required)

View Item