FIQH SIYASAH REVIEW OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT'S STANCE REGARDING THE PARLIAMENTARY THRESHOLD
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30863/aldustur.v8i1.8826Keywords:
Constitutional Court, Islamic Jurisprudence, Parliamentary Threshold, Law, Fiqh SiyasahAbstract
The purpose of this research is to analyze fiqh siyasah on the decision of the Constitutional Court Number 116/PUU-XXI/2023 on Parliamentary Threshold. Through a normative juridical approach and fiqh siyasah analysis, this research examines the principles of justice, deliberation and maslahat in accordance with sharia values in decision-making by the panel of judges. This research is normative juridical research, namely research by collecting primary and secondary legal materials that are relevant to research using a conceptual approach, to the decision of the Constitutional Court Number 116/PUU-XXI/2023 both in the study of constitutional law and fiqh siyasah. The results of this study found that the constitutional court emphasized a formal legal approach in decision making so that substantive justice was not achieved. This can be seen that the Constitutional Court continues to impose a parliamentary limit of 4% because it is considered not contrary to the principles of the 1945 Constitution. In the study of fiqh siyasah on the decision of the Constitutional Court Number 116 / PUU-XXI / 2023 concerning Parliamentary Threshold, it shows the lack of substantial judicial ijtihad value. The Court is more inclined to legal formalities than fighting for representative justice which should be the main focus. One of the ijtihad that can be used by the Constitutional Court is ijtihad ta'lili, which is ijtihad based on an analysis of 'illat al-ḥukm (the reason or cause of a legal provision). In this context, the Court should analyze whether the 4% threshold still meets the rationality of justice and democratic effectiveness, or has actually exceeded its original purpose and caused constitutional harm.
References
Abadi, M. Husnu, Wira Atma Hajri, and Umi Muslikhah. “Implikasi Atas Perubahan Sikap Mahkamah Konstitusi Terhadap Pengujian Undang-Undang Yang Merupakan Kebijakan Hukum Terbuka, Melalui Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 116/PUU-XXI/ 2023.†Journal of Mandalika Social Science 3, no. 1 (September 4, 2024): 183–200. https://doi.org/10.59613/jomss.v3i1.147.
Abdul Manan. Perbandingan Politik Hukum Islam Dan Barat. Jakarta: Prenada Media Group, 2016.
Aenal Fuad Adam, Wellem Levi Betaubun, and Nur Jalal. “Quo Vadis Parliamentary Threshold Di Indonesia.†JJIIP: Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Pemerintahan 6, no. 1 (2021): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.14710/jiip.v6i1.8618.
Agusti, Arma. “Pandangan Siyasah Qadhaiyyah Terhadap Kepastian Hukum Kewenangan Constitutional Complaint.†Jurnal Kewarganegaraan 8, no. 1 (August 16, 2024): 1367–73. https://doi.org/10.31316/jk.v8i1.1589.
Ahmad Nur Ansari, Suhardiman Syamsu, and Dian Ekawaty. “Relevansi Parliamentary Threshold Dan Sistem Kepartaian Di Indonesia.†Palita: Journal of Social Religion Research 7, no. 1 (2022): 82–96. https://doi.org/10.24256/pal.v7i1.2851.
Astawa, I. Wayan, I. Nyoman Suandika, and Kadek Frediandrika Adnantara. “Sistem Pemilihan Umum Terbuka Berdasarkan Undang-Undang Pemilihan Umum.†Ethics and Law Journal: Business and Notary 2, no. 2 (June 23, 2024): 148–65. https://doi.org/10.61292/eljbn.190.
Bachmid, Fahri. “Eksistensi Kedaulatan Rakyat dan Implementasi Parliamentary Threshold dalam Sistem Pemilihan Umum di Indonesia.†SIGn Jurnal Hukum 2, no. 2 (November 19, 2020): 87–103. https://doi.org/10.37276/sjh.v2i2.83.
Barqi, Suha Yusbairoh, M. Yasin al Arif, and Irwantoni Irwantoni. “Reforming the Parliamentary Threshold in Indonesia’s General Elections: A Legal and Fiqh Siyasah Dusturiyah Perspective.†As-Siyasi: Journal of Constitutional Law 4, no. 2 (December 13, 2024): 112–35. https://doi.org/10.24042/as-siyasi.v4i2.24326.
Benartin, Bernardinus Putra, and Paulus Wisnu Yudoprakoso. “Pengaruh Ambang Batas Parlemen Terhadap Kedudukan Partai Oposisi Serta Kaitannya Dengan Sistem Pemerintahan Presidensil Di Indonesia.†Gloria Justitia 1, no. 2 (2021): 176–91. https://doi.org/10.25170/gloriajustitia.v1i2.3064.
Fikriana, Askana, and M. Kahfi Rezki. “Etika Politik Dan Kualifikasi Calon Legislatif Dalam Pemilu: Perspektif Fiqih Siyasah.†ALADALAH: Jurnal Politik, Sosial, Hukum Dan Humaniora 2, no. 1 (2024): 235–48. https://doi.org/10.59246/aladalah.v2i1.657.
Hamdi, Muh. Rizal, Idul Adnan, and Lalu Hendri Nuriskandar. “IMPLIKASI PENGHAPUSAN PARLIAMENTARY THRESHOLD PADA PEMILU SERENTAK TAHUN 2029.†JURNAL DARUSSALAM: Pemikiran Hukum Tata Negara dan Perbandingan Mazhab 4, no. 2 (December 26, 2024): 161–76. https://doi.org/10.59259/jd.v4i2.193.
Hayya, Nur Mila, Rosmini _, and Harry Setya Nugraha. “Constitutionality of Replacing Judges Mid-Term and Its Implications on the Independence of the Constitutional Court, Indonesia.†As-Siyasi: Journal of Constitutional Law 3, no. 2 (December 14, 2023): 155–75. https://ejournal.radenintan.ac.id/index.php/assiyasi/article/view/18683.
Helmi, Muhammad. “Penemuan Hukum Cerai Gugat Oleh Hakim Pada Pengadilan Agama Berdasar Paradigma Post-Positivisme.†Asy-Syari’ah 23, no. 2 (2021): 261–78. https://doi.org/10.15575/as.v23i2.15001.
Karso, A. Junaedi. Kupas Tuntas Parliamentary & Presidential Threshold Di Indonesia: Antara Perspektif Positif & Negatif. Samudra Biru, 2024.
Khammi Zada Majar Ibnu Syarif. Fiqh Siyasah : Doktrin Dan Pemikiran Politik Islam. Jakarta: Erlangga, 2009.
Kherid, Muhammad Nizar. Evaluasi Sistem Pemilu di Indonesia 1955-2019: Sebuah Perspektif Pluralisme Hukum. PT. Rayyana Komunikasindo, 2021.
Maizaroh, Muthi’ah Muti, and Andriansyah Andri -. “Nafas Konstitusi: Kepentingan Konstitusional Sebagai Paradigma Judicial Review Di Indonesia.†Jurnal Rechts Vinding: Media Pembinaan Hukum Nasional 13, no. 1 (April 30, 2024). https://doi.org/10.33331/rechtsvinding.v13i1.1577.
Muh Rakhul Rahman, Nurlaili Rahmawati, Dzakwan Fadhil Putra Kusuma, and Muhammad Zidan Masykur. “The Abolition of the Parliamentary Threshold: A Legal Analysis of the Constitutional Court’s Decision from the Perspective of Constitutional Law.†Palangka Law Review 4, no. 2 (2024). https://doi.org/10.52850/palarev.v4i2.14994.
Prianto, Wahyu. “Analisis Hierarki Perundang-Undangan Berdasarkan Teori Norma Hukum Oleh Hans Kelsen Dan Hans Nawiasky.†Jurnal Ilmu Sosial Dan Pendidikan 2, no. 1 (January 6, 2024): 08–19. https://jurnal.unusultra.ac.id/index.php/jisdik/article/view/52.
Priyanto, Ari, and M. Yasin Al Arif. “Legal Implications of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 60/PUU-XXII/2024 on the Simultaneous Regional Head Elections in 2024.†Jurnal Ius Constituendum 10, no. 1 (February 28, 2025): 137–51. https://doi.org/10.26623/jic.v10i1.10968.
Priyanto, Ari, M. Yasin Al Arif, Liky Faizal, and Anis Sofiana. “Reviving House of National Representatives Power: A Normative Analysis Through the Lens of Fiqh Siyasah Dusturiyah.†Mimbar Keadilan 18, no. 1 (January 31, 2025): 145–58. https://doi.org/10.30996/mk.v18i1.12648.
Putri, Dayandini Hastiti, and Edi Sofwan. “Parliamentary Threshold Dan Masa Depan Multipartai Di Indonesia: Analisis Putusan MK NO. 116/PUU-XXI/2023.†Majalah Hukum Nasional 54, no. 2 (December 28, 2024): 199–215. https://doi.org/10.33331/mhn.v54i2.419.
Putusan Mahkakamh Konstitusi Nomor 116/PUU-XXI/2023
Ritonga, Muslimin, and Raegen Harahap. “Keterlibatan Selebriti Pasca Parliamentary Threshold Dalam Kontestasi Politik Elektoral Di Indonesia.†Jurnal Pemerintahan Dan Politik 8, no. 3 (October 25, 2023): 238–45. https://doi.org/10.36982/jpg.v8i3.3320.
Sabrina, Dian Fitri, and Muhammad Saad. “Keadilan Dalam Pemilu Berdasarkan Sistem Presidential Threshold.†Widya Pranata Hukum : Jurnal Kajian Dan Penelitian Hukum 3, no. 1 (April 4, 2021): 15–37. https://doi.org/10.37631/widyapranata.v3i1.268.
Siahaan, Maruarar. Hukum Acara Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia (Edisi Kedua). Sinar Grafika, 2022.
Simanjuntak, Debby Nauli Rafeyfa, Khoirunnisa Putri Diksy, Balqis Tsabitah Azzahrah, Nayara Dihati, and Irwan Triadi. “Pemberlakuan Parliamentary Threshold Dalam Sistem Pemilihan Umum Legislatif Di Indonesia†1, no. 3 (2024).
Sunan At-Tirmidzi No. 1244
Supryadi, Ady, Aesthetica Fiorinimantika, Rena Aminwara, Fahrurrozi Fahrurrozi, and Imawanto Imawanto. “Penafsiran Konstitusi Terhadap Putusan Nomor 116/PUU-XXI/2023 Tentang Ambang Batas Parlemen.†GANEC SWARA 18, no. 1 (March 9, 2024): 592. https://doi.org/10.35327/gara.v18i1.800.
Undang-Undang Nomor 7 Tahun 2017
Wicaksono, Dian Agung, and Garuda Era Ruhpinesthi. “Inisiasi Penerapan Purcell Principle oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam Pengujian Undang-Undang terkait Pemilihan Umum: Initiation of the Purcell Principle by the Constitutional Court in Judicial Review Related to the Law of General Elections.†Jurnal Konstitusi 22, no. 1 (March 1, 2025): 109–36. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk2216.
Yasin, Rahman. “Telaah Putusan MK Dalam Sengketa PHPU Pilpres 2004 (Perspektif Negara Demokrasi Konstitusional).†Jurnal Konstitusi 11, no. 4 (2014): 650–70. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1143.
Downloads
Additional Files
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Fakhri Muhammad Davil Oswan, Relit Nur Edi, Hasanuddin Muhammad
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
