Disharmonisasi Asas Res Judicata Pro Veritate Habetur Terhadap Asas Nemo Judex Idoneus In Propria Causa Dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia (Studi Kasus Putusan Nomor 90/PUU-XXI/2023)

Mikhaesran, Cauntrenz (2025) Disharmonisasi Asas Res Judicata Pro Veritate Habetur Terhadap Asas Nemo Judex Idoneus In Propria Causa Dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia (Studi Kasus Putusan Nomor 90/PUU-XXI/2023). S1 thesis, Universitas Kristen Indonesia.

	Text (Hal_Judul_DaftarIsi_Abstrak) HalJudulDaftarIsiAbstrak.pdf Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (2MB)
	Text (Bab_I) BabI.pdf Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (417kB)
	Text (Bab_II) BabII.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (552kB)
	Text (Bab_III) BabIII.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (571kB)
	Text (Bab_IV) BabIV.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (477kB)
	Text (Bab_V) BabV.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (251kB)
	Text (Daftar_Pustaka) DaftarPustaka.pdf Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (276kB)

Abstract

Penelitian ini menganalisis disharmonisasi antara asas Res judicata pro veritate habetur dan asas Nemo judex idoneus in propria causa dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 90/PUU-XXI/2023. Putusan ini mengubah syarat usia calon presiden dan wakil presiden dari minimal 40 tahun menjadi "minimal 40 tahun atau pernah/sedang menduduki jabatan yang dipilih melalui pemilihan umum termasuk pemilihan kepala daerah". Metode penelitian hukum normatif digunakan dengan pendekatan undang-undang dan kasus, serta analisis kualitatif deskriptif. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa Mahkamah Konstitusi menerapkan asas Res judicata pro veritate Habetur dengan menafsirkan ulang doktrin open legal policy, membenarkan intervensi terhadap norma yang dianggap melanggar rasionalitas dan keadilan konstitusional. Namun, legitimasi putusan terganggu oleh pelanggaran asas nemo judex idoneus in propria causa, di mana adanya konflik kepentingan Hakim Konstitusi Anwar Usman terhadap objek yang dimohonkan secara eksplisit dalam dalil Pemohon tidak diakui maupun diatasi dalam pertimbangan hukum putusan. Putusan, meskipun final dan mengikat, menjadi kontroversial karena adanya cacat etik yang merusak kepercayaan publik terhadap imparsialitas peradilan. Disharmonisasi ini menciptakan ketegangan antara kepastian hukum formal dan keadilan substantif, menunjukkan bahwa finalitas putusan harus sejalan dengan integritas prosedur. / This study analyzes the disharmony between the principle of Res Judicata Pro Veritate Habetur and the principle of Nemo Judex Idoneus In Propria Causa in the Constitutional Court Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023. The decision amended the constitutional requirements for presidential and vice-presidential candidates, changing the minimum age from 40 years to "at least 40 years old or having held an elected public office through general elections, including regional elections." A normative legal research method was employed, using statutory and case approaches with qualitative-descriptive analysis. The findings reveal that the Constitutional Court applied the principle of Res Judicata Pro Veritate Habetur by reinterpreting the doctrine of open legal policy, thereby justifying judicial intervention into legislative norms deemed irrational or unjust in light of constitutional standards. However, the legitimacy of the decision was compromised by a breach of the principle Nemo Judex Idoneus In Propria Causa, as one of the justices, Anwar Usman, had a conflict of interest in relation to the object of the petition an issue explicitly raised by the petitioner but neither acknowledged nor addressed in the Court's legal reasoning. While the decision is final and binding, the presence of an ethical violation has raised serious concerns about judicial impartiality, undermining public trust. This disharmony illustrates a broader tension between the demands of formal legal certainty and substantive justice, affirming that the finality of a decision must be aligned with procedural integrity.

Actions (login required)

View Item