<![CDATA[Artikel ini membahas penafsiran terhadap makna agama di dalam konstitusi, yang mana terdapat perbedaan dalam penafsiran makna agama tersebut yaitu menurut Putusan MK Nomor 97/PUU-XIV/2016 agama di masyarakat adat (penghayat kepercayaan) termasuk ke dalam makna agama di dalam konstitusi, sementara menurut Putusan MK Nomor 140/PUU-VII/2009 agama di masyarakat adat tidak termasuk ke dalam pengertian agama di dalam konstitusi. Penulis menggunakan metode penelitian hukum normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan, dan penafsiran historis. Berdasarkan asas hukum lex prosterior derogat legi priori menegaskan Putusan MK Nomor 97/PUU-XIV/2016 yang diputuskan oleh MK belakangan mengesampingkan berlakunya Putusan MK Nomor 140/PUU-VII/2009.This article is intended to discuss interpretation on the religion meaning in the Constitution where there is a different result of interpretation to the meaning of the religion in the Constitution according to the Constitutional Court Decision Number 97/PUU-XIV/2016 and the Constitutional Court Decision Number 140/PUU-VII/2009. The Constitutional Court Decision Number 140/PUU-VII/2009 says the religion in the indigenous community (the Penghayat Kepercayaan) is not part of the religion meaning in the Constitution, but according to the Constitutional Court Decision Number 97/PUU-IV/2016 the religion in the indigenous community is part of the religion meaning in the Constitution. Finally, a law principle of Lex Posterior Derogat Legi Priori is applied to such legal issue where the Constitutional Court Decision Number 97/PUU-XIV/2016 overrules the Constitutional Court Decision Number 140/PUU-VII/2009. ]]>
