<![CDATA[ Tipe penelitian yang digunakan dalam peniltian ini adalah penelitian normatif (doktrinal). Penelitian ini menggunakan tiga jenis pendekatan penelitian hukum yaitu Pendekatan histori (Historical approach), Pendekatan perundang-undangan (statute approach) dan Pendekatan konseptual (Conseptual approach). Adapun data penelitian akan dianalisis dengan metode analisis deskriptif, yakni usaha untuk mengumpulkan dan menyusun suatu data, kemudian dilakukan analisis terhadap data tersebut. Hasil penelitian ini menyimpulkan bahwa Dasar pemikiran (Ratio Legis) dari Pasal 6a ayat (3) UUD 1945 tentang syarat keterpilihan presiden dan wakil presiden adalah merupakan kompromi terhadap masalah yang akan timbul jika hanya memakai sistem popular vote. Penambahan tentang syarat persebaran suara bertujuan utama untuk mendapat legitimacy rakyat indonesia seluruhnya dalam kontestasi politik pemilihan presiden. Hal ini juga bertujuan untuk memastikan representasi rakyat berdasar kewilayahan dapat tercapai agar konflik horizontal bisa dihindari. Majelis hakim Mahkamah konstitusi pada putusan Nomor 39/PUU-XVII/2019 terbukti tidak memperhatikan dasar pemikiran (Ratio Legis) dari Pasal 6a ayat (3). Pemaknaan majelis hakim terhadap prinsip kedaulatan rakyat dan representasi kewilayahan mempunyai konteks yang berbeda dengan pembahasan pembentukan ketentuan ini. Rekomendasi dari penelitian ini adalah Perlunya Perlunya analisis yang menyeluruh dalam usaha memahami teks konstitusi termasuk dengan mencari tahu dasar pemikiran terbentuknya ketentuan konstitusional tersebut. Perlunya Hakim Mahkamah konstitusi menggali dasar pemikiran sebuah ketentuan dalam UUD 1945 pasca amandemen sebelum memutuskan sebuah perkara Judicial Review.Kata-Kunci: Putusan, Mahkamah Konstitusi, Ratio LegisThis study aims to analyze the decision of the Constitutional Court Number 39/PUU-XVII/2019 and its conformity with the ratio legis for the formation of the presidential and vice presidential election regulations in the amendments to the 1945 Constitution. The type of research used in this research is normative (doctrinal) research. This study uses three types of legal research approaches, namely the historical approach, the statutory approach and the conceptual approach. The research data will be analyzed by descriptive analysis method, namely an effort to collect and compile a data, then an analysis of the data is carried out. The results of this study conclude that the rationale (Ratio Legis) of Article 6a paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution regarding the requirements for the election of the president and vice president is a compromise on the problems that will arise if only using the popular vote system. The addition of the requirements for the distribution of votes has the main aim of gaining the legitimacy of the Indonesian people as a whole in the political contestation of the presidential election. It also aims to ensure that regional representation of the people can be achieved so that horizontal conflicts can be avoided. The judges of the Constitutional Court in their decision Number 39/PUU-XVII/2019 were proven not to pay attention to the rationale (Ratio Legis) of article 6a paragraph (3). The meaning of the panel of judges on the principle of people's sovereignty and territorial representation has a different context from the discussion on the formation of this provision. The recommendation from this research is the need for a thorough analysis in an effort to understand the text of the constitution, including by finding out the rationale for the formation of the constitutional provisions. It is necessary for judges of the Constitutional Court to explore the rationale for a provision in the 1945 Constitution after the amendment before deciding on a Judicial Review case.Keywords: Decision, Constitutional Court, Ratio Legis]]>
