The PARADOX OF STATE OF LAW IDEA ON PANCASILA PHILOSOPHICAL JUSTIFICATION AS SOURCES OF LAW

Abstract

The state of law idea formulated in the provisions of Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia is a formulation containing normative statement that is still dubious and seems convincing. Embedding the nature of legality in the context of the idea of the rule of law through the statement that Pancasila is the source of legal norms need to be questioned. The idea of Pancasila is impossible to realize if it does not materialize into a living reality, not a dead one. The possibility if Pancasila is used as sources of law it will expand coercive actions and choices of legal imperatives. Pancasila must be able transforming and making itself relevant in midst of the challenges of social changes. The construction of the idea of a rule of law should not depend on absolute and certainty. It must be able to be created as a discursive space that is truly interpretive and not limitative. Pancasila is existed and recognized in the constitutional adjudication with presuppositions to explain the rationalization of legal reality. It must be carried out at the level of the goal for obtaining and achieving justice. The problem of the paradox of the rule of law idea can be raised through legal interpretations that are able to find a relationship between what should be normative and what is factual. Judges must be able to voice more than what is stated in the law and what is said by the law.

Keywords

• state of law
• paradox
• constitutional adjudication
• sources of law