<![CDATA[Sien Dimas Ahmad Samudra, Dr. Tunggul Anshari SN, SH., M.H, Lutfi Efendi, SH., M.Hum. Fakultas Hukum Universitas Brawijaya Jalan MT. Haryono No. 169, Malang 65145, Indonesia Telp. +62-341-553898, Fax: +62-341-566505 Email: ssiendimas@yahoo.co.id  ABSTRAK Atas dikeluarkannya Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 97/PUU – XIV / 2016 tidak diakomodirnya aliran kepercayaan dalam KTP dan KK yang mengakibatkan tak jarang penganut kepercayaan terpaksa berbohong dalam mengisi kolom agama agar mendapatkan pelayanan publik. dalam praktik sering memunculkan perdebatan dan keraguan untuk menindaklanjuti putusan MK jika tanpa perubahan regulasi teknis terhadapnya karena adanya Inkonsistensi antara peraturan perundang-undangan dan putusan MK tersebut. Putusan tersebut Mahkamah Konstitusi memutuskan pasal 61 ayat (2) dan pasal 64 ayat (5) Undang-undang nomor 23 tahun 2006 tentang Administrasi Kependudukan sebagaimana telah diubah dengan Undang-undang nomor 24 tahun 2013 perubahan atas Undang-undang nomor 23 tahun 2006 tentang Administrasi kependudukan. bertentangan dengan UUD NRI Tahun 1945 dan tidak mempunyai kekuatan hukum mengikat. Untuk menjawab permasalahan diatas maka menggunakan penelitian yuridis normatif. Metode penelitian hukum menggunakan pendekatan perundang-undangan dan pendekatan kasus. Bahan-bahan hukum yang berhubungan dengan masalah yang diteliti diperoleh dari buku-buku ahli hukum, jurnal hukum, risalah sidang, serta undang-undang yang terkait. Berdasarkan pembahasan, maka dapat disimpulkan bahwa hingga sеkarang bеlum ada rеalisasi yang jеlas dari pеmеrintah pеnghayat kеpеrcayaan masih bеlum dituliskan agamnya pada kolom agama di KTP, masih sulitnya untuk mеndaftarkan diri dalam pеkеrjaan maupun dalam hal pеrkawinan tidak tеrcatat di catatan sipil sеlalu tеrbеntur dеngan prosеdur administrasi. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 97/PUU-XIV/2016 sеakan hanya untuk mеnghargai adanya aliran kеpеrcayaan di Indonеsia saja dеngan tidak ada tindak lanjut dari pеmеrintah baik dari pеraturan pеrundang-undangan maupun rеalisasi dari pihak pеmеrintah sеndiri khususnya pеjabat HAN. Kata kunci: Administrasi, Kependudukan, Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi ABSTRACT Based on the Decision by Constitutional Court Number 97/PUU-XIV/2016, the religious status of a certain belief is not accommodated in ID card and Family Card, leading to false information on the religion a person belongs to for the sake of gaining public services. In the practice, this issue has led to some argument to give a follow-up to the decision due to inconsistency between the regulations and the decision of the Constitutional Court. The decision of the Constitutional Court is in Article 61 Paragraph (2) and Article 64 Paragraph (5) of Act Number 23 of 2006 on Population Administration as amended to Act Number 24 of 2013, an amendment of Act Number 23 of 2006 on Population Administration. This is irrelevant to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and does not hold any binding legal force. Based on the issues mentioned earlier, research problems are presented as follows: what procedures are to be taken in terms of population administration over the space for religion on id card and Family Card after the issuance of Constitutional Court Decision Number 97/PUU-XIV/2016? And what are the legal implications on Act of Population Administration and the following regulations after the issuance of Constitutional Court Decision Number 97/PUU-XIV/2016? The normative juridical research method was employed in this research, supported by statute and case approaches. The legal materials for the research were obtained from books written by legal experts, a legal journal, minutes of trial, and relevant Acts. From the research result, it is concluded that there has not been any clear realization by the government over inputting a certain belief written in the religion space on the ID card. In marriage, this status is not registered in the registry office and it is always in conflict with administrative procedures. The Decision made by the Constitutional Court seems to only informally appreciate the existence of a certain belief without any further act of the government reflected in Acts, especially of Human Rights officials. Keywords: administration, population, Constitutional Court Decision  ]]>
