Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.408
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Al-Syakhsiyyah : Journal of Law and Family Studies Al-Qadha: Jurnal Hukum Islam dan Perundang-Undangan
Umarwan Sutopo
Universitas Islam Negeri Kiai Ageng Muhammad Besari Ponorogo
Religion Humanities Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

 1 
Judicial Ethics, Legal Reasoning, and the Validity of Court Decisions: The Paradox of Constitutional Adjudication in Indonesia Umarwan Sutopo; Endrik Safudin; Kholili Badriza
Al-Syakhsiyyah: Journal of Law and Family Studies Vol. 8 No. 1 (2026)
Publisher : Faculty of Shariah UIN Ponorogo

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.21154/syakhsiyyah.v8i1.13333

Abstract

This study aims to analyze the correlation between ethical and non-ethical rulings in the Indonesian judicial system, particularly in light of Constitutional Court Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023, which was upheld despite the judge’s ethical violations, as determined by the Constitutional Court’s Honorary Council. The research focuses on the inconsistency between legal norms and judicial practice regarding the implications of ethical violations for the validity of rulings. This study employs a doctrinal legal method with a jurisprudential, conceptual, and critical-analytical approach to legislation, court rulings, and the construction of legal and moral reasoning in judicial practice. Data were analyzed qualitatively through a normative interpretation of the relationship between ethical norms and the legal legitimacy of rulings. The results indicate that the relationship between ethical and non-ethical rulings is paradoxical: normatively, they are integrated, yet in judicial practice, they are treated as separate, meaning that ethical violations do not automatically invalidate legal rulings. This study confirms that ethical and non-ethical rulings rest on different bases of reasoning; thus, they do not directly validate one another, yet they still influence each other within the framework of legal legitimacy, certainty, and justice.
The Abolition of the Presidential Threshold and the Reconstruction of Presidential Nominations: A Political-Legal, Political Economy, and Siyāsah Dustūriyyah Analysis Umarwan Sutopo; Muhammad Ali Murtadlo; Hilman Rosyidi
Al-Qadha : Jurnal Hukum Islam dan Perundang-Undangan Vol. 13 No. 1 (2026): Al-Qadha: Jurnal Hukum Islam dan Perundang-Undangan
Publisher : Hukum Keluarga Islam IAIN LANGSA

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.32505/qadha.v13i1.14653

Abstract

The Constitutional Court's Decision Number 62/PUU-XXII/2024, which abolishes the presidential threshold, marks an important change in the presidential nomination system in Indonesia. This research aims to analyze the legal-political construction underlying the abolition of the presidential threshold, examine its implications for the political economy structure of elections, and formulate a presidential nomination model that reflects the perspective of siyāsah dustūriyyah. This research is a normative legal study using the statute approach, case approach, conceptual approach, and Islamic legal approach. Data was obtained through library research on legislation, Constitutional Court decisions, and related literature and then analyzed qualitatively. The research results indicate that the removal of the presidential threshold reflects a shift in legal politics from an orientation toward political stability to the strengthening of people's sovereignty, equality of political rights, and a more inclusive democracy. From a political economy perspective, the policy expands political competition and strengthens the opportunities for medium and small parties, but it also has the potential to give rise to new forms of oligarchic dominance through political funding and high campaign costs. From the perspective of siyāsah dustūriyyah, this research offers a model of presidential nomination based on justice and public interest, grounded in open nominations, internal party democracy, political funding reform, equal access to campaigns, and program-based coalition governance to achieve political justice, public welfare, and government stability.
Co-Authors Endrik Safudin Hilman Rosyidi Kholili Badriza Muhammad Ali Murtadlo