<![CDATA[Tapera policy represents a form of state intervention in housing finance provision, accompanied by mandatory participation and savings contributions for those subject to statutory requirements. Problems arise when the objective of housing provision as a public interest must be reconciled with the burdens imposed on society. This study aims to analyze Tapera’s mandatory participation from the perspective of Siyasah Syar’iyyah, using Constitutional Court Decision No. 96/PUU-XXII/2024 as a primary legal source. The research employs normative legal methods with statutory, case, and conceptual approaches. The analysis applies the principle of al-maslahah, with al-‘adl and prevention of mafsadah as related principles. The findings indicate that the objective of housing provision embodies a dimension of maslahah, yet such objectives do not automatically legitimize every form of mandatory participation. Analysis of Constitutional Court Decision No. 96/PUU-XXII/2024 shows that Tapera’s obligations involve issues of participation design, registration, savings payments, the division of responsibilities between state and society, and the need to address social justice and vulnerable groups in restructuring the housing finance system. Based on the synthesis of Siyasah Syar’iyyah, positive law, and constitutional concerns, this study formulates five evaluative parameters: clarity of public benefit objectives, proportionality of burdens and benefits, justice and participant protection, transparency and accountability, and effectiveness and benefit distribution. These parameters are the normative reconstruction of the study and not explicit formulations of the Constitutional Court. The study provides an evaluative framework to assess and reconstruct Tapera’s mandatory participation without reducing it to a binary choice between maintaining or abolishing the policy.]]>
