Jurnal Konstitusi (Nov 2018)

Eksistensi Majelis Kehormatan Mahkamah Konstitusi (Studi Keputusan Majelis Kehormatan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 01/MKMK/X/2013)

  • Sutan Sorik,
  • Mirza Nasution,
  • Nazaruddin Nazaruddin

DOI
https://doi.org/10.31078/jk15310
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 15, no. 3

Abstract

Read online

Penelitian ini membahas tentang eksistensi Majelis Kehormatan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah yuridis normatif. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa kebebasan Hakim Konstitusi untuk menjalankan fungsi, kewenangan, serta kewajibannya merupakan hal yang mutlak harus dimiliki Hakim Konstitusi. Akan tetapi demi menjamin kehormatan, keluhuran martabat, dan kode etik Hakim Konstitusi, maka harus ada mekanisme pertanggungjawaban setiap perbuatan Hakim Konstitusi melalui pengawasan. Hal ini dilakukan supaya kebebasan tersebut tidak disalahgunakan menjadi tameng hukum oleh Hakim Konstitusi. Studi ini juga berhasil mengkonfirmasi bahwa Keputusan Majelis Kehormatan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 01/MKMK/X/2013 yang menyatakan Hakim Terlapor H.M. Akil Mochtar terbukti melakukan pelanggaran Kode Etik dan Perilaku Hakim Konstitusi, dengan menjatuhkan sanksi pemberhentian tidak dengan hormat, telah memberikan kepastian hukum dan kejelasan lembaga pengawas perilaku Hakim Mahkamah Konstitusi. Sehingga anggapan tirani yudisial, dan tirani kekuasaan kehakiman yang dijalankan Mahkamah Konstitusi secara monopolistik tidak benar-benar terjadi di Mahkamah Konstitusi. This study discusses the existence of the Constitutional Court Honorary Council. The method used in this study is normative juridical, with a decision analysis approach of the Constitutional Court Honorary Council Number 01/MKMK/X/2013. From the analysis, it is known that the freedom of Constitutional Judges to carry out their functions, authorities, and obligations is an absolute requirement for Constitutional Judges. However, in order to guarantee the honor, dignity and ethics code of the Constitutional Justices, there must be a mechanism of accountability for every act of the Constitutional Justice through supervision. This is done so that freedom is not misused to be a legal shield by a Constitutional Judge. This study also succeeded in confirming that the Decision of the Constitutional Court Honorary Assembly Number 01/MKMK/X/2013 stated the Reported Judge H.M. Akil Mochtar was proven to have violated the Code of Ethics and Behavior of Constitutional Judges, by not sanctioning dismissal with respect, has provided legal certainty and clarity of the supervisory body of the conduct of the Judge of the Constitutional Court. So that the assumption of judicial tyranny, and the tyranny of the judicial power exercised by the Constitutional Court are monopolistically not true in the Constitutional Court.

Keywords