PROGRESIVITAS HUKUM TERHADAP DISSENTING OPINION DALAM PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI NOMOR 1/PHPU.PRES-XXII/2024 TENTANG PERSELISIHAN HASIL PEMILU PERSPEKTIF MASLAHAH

Ulfa Salsabila, S.H, NIM.: 23203011177 (2025) PROGRESIVITAS HUKUM TERHADAP DISSENTING OPINION DALAM PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI NOMOR 1/PHPU.PRES-XXII/2024 TENTANG PERSELISIHAN HASIL PEMILU PERSPEKTIF MASLAHAH. Masters thesis, UIN SUNAN KALIJAGA YOGYAKARTA.

Preview	Text (PROGRESIVITAS HUKUM TERHADAP DISSENTING OPINION DALAM PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI NOMOR 1/PHPU.PRES-XXII/2024 TENTANG PERSELISIHAN HASIL PEMILU PERSPEKTIF MASLAHAH) 23203011177_BAB-I_IV-atau-V_DAFTAR-PUSTAKA.pdf - Published Version Download (10MB) | Preview
	Text (PROGRESIVITAS HUKUM TERHADAP DISSENTING OPINION DALAM PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI NOMOR 1/PHPU.PRES-XXII/2024 TENTANG PERSELISIHAN HASIL PEMILU PERSPEKTIF MASLAHAH) 23203011177_BAB-II_sampai_SEBELUM-BAB-TERAKHIR.pdf - Published Version Restricted to Registered users only Download (19MB) | Request a copy

Abstract

Constitutional Court Decision Number 1/PHPUPRES-XXII/2024 concerning the Election Results Dispute was read out on April 22, 2024. In its decision, the Court rejected all of the applicant's requests and stated that the structured, systematic, and massive (TSM) election violations were not proven. This decision sparked criticism and anger from some people because it was considered to ignore various allegations of abuse of power and injustice during the election process. Interestingly, for the first time in the history of examining the Presidential Election results dispute at the Constitutional Court, there was a dissenting opinion from three constitutional judges who voiced the importance of substantive justice and maintaining the integrity of the election. This study will analyze the extent to which the dissenting opinion reflects the progressive legal character developed by Satjipto Rahardjo by examining the arguments of the three judges. In addition, this study will also analyze the Maṣlaḥah level of Constitutional Court Decision Number 1/PHPU.PRES-XXII/2024 through two conflicting views: the majority decision of the Court and the dissenting opinion of three constitutional judges. This study uses a qualitative normative legal research method (library research). This study uses primary legal materials and secondary legal materials in the data collection process to obtain an in-depth and comprehensive understanding of the progressiveness of the law towards dissenting opinions in the Constitutional Court Decision Number 1/PHPU.PRES-XXII/2024. The analysis will use a combination of Progressive Legal Theory according to Satjipto Rahardjo and Maslahah Theory according to Al-Ghazali and other Usul Fiqh Scholars as a scalpel and theoretical basis in this study. The results of the study show that the dissenting opinion of the three constitutional judges in the Constitutional Court Decision Number 1/PHPU.PRES-XXII/2024 reflects the application of four progressive legal indicators according to Sadjipto Raharjo. Therefore, the dissenting opinion taken by the three constitutional judges can be said to be a progressive step in examining allegations of fraud and violations in the 2024 Election results dispute. In addition, the results of the al-Darūriyyāt al-Khams tarjihan method of Constitutional Court Decision Number 1/PHPU.PRES-XXII/2024 show that the majority of judges' decisions are at the Maṣlaḥah ḥājiyyāt level, while the dissenting opinion of the three constitutional judges is at the Maṣlaḥah Darūriyyāt level because it has touched on three of the five main aspects of human life, namely protection of religion (hifz al-din), soul (hifz al-nafs), and reason (hifz al-‘aql). Therefore, the content of Maṣlaḥah in the dissenting opinion of the three judges is higher and must be prioritized over Maṣlaḥah in the majority decision of the Court.

Share this knowledge with your friends :

Actions (login required)

View Item