Konsistensi Pembuatan Norma Hukum dengan Doktrin Judicial Activism dalam Putusan Judicial Review

Abstract

This study intends to explain the consistency of the Constitutional Court (MK) in making new legal norms by using the doctrine of judicial activism and to explain the factors that underlie the consistency of the Constitutional Court in making new legal norms through normative juridical research by explaining the principles, principles, and analysis of interrelated decisions. This study concludes that the Constitutional Court is inconsistent because it only grants and makes new legal norms in the Constitutional Court Decision Number 5/PUU-V/2007. Meanwhile, in the Constitutional Court's Decision Number 53/PUU-XV/2017, the Constitutional Court refused to make a new norm even though the two cases created discrimination and limited public participation in politics. The inconsistency factors include: 1) jurisprudence factors, 2) the application cannot convince the majority of the judges of the Constitutional Court, and 3) the paradigm factor of judges.

Keywords

• Judicial Activism
• Judicial Review
• New Legal Norm
• Open Legal Policy
• Positive Legislature