<![CDATA[ABSTRAKPutusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 13/PUUXV/2017 terkait pembatalan aturan larangan pernikahan antar-karyawan sekantor, dinilai sebagai bentuk jaminan pemenuhan hak asasi manusia, berupa hak membentuk keluarga melalui perkawinan yang sah sebagaimana tertuang dalam Pasal 28B ayat (1) UUD NRI 1945. Pertimbangan hukum putusan tersebut memuat asas kebebasan berkontrak sebagai salah satu syarat sahnya perjanjian dan persepsi ketidaksetaraan dalam perjanjian kerja. Menarik untuk dikaji, bagaimana konstruksi hukum perjanjian kerja, khususnya kesetaraan pihak. Mengingat asas kebebasan berkontrak merupakan salah satu asas dalam perjanjian yang mengindikasikan adanya ketidakcacatan kehendak, maka pertanyaan lebih lanjutnya, apakah betul perjanjian kerja tidak memberikan kesetaraan kepada para pihak sebagaimana yang didalilkan oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi? Apakah konsekuensi yuridis Mahkamah Konstitusi mendudukkan asas kebebasan berkontrak sebagai salah satu syarat sahnya perjanjian, yang mana hal ini bertolak belakang dengan ketentuan dalam Pasal 1320 KUHPerdata? Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum normatif dengan studi kasus mengkaji bahan hukum primer berupa Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 13/PUU-XV/2017. Penelitian ini dilakukan melalui pendekatan peraturan perundang-undangan dan pendekatan konseptual. Data dianalisis secara deskriptif-kualitatif. Hasil penelitian ini setidaknya menunjukkan bahwa dalam putusan tersebut, khususnya pada bagian pertimbangan, Mahkamah Konstitusi memberikan ambiguitas pertimbangan hukum, yang notabene bertentangan dengan pengaturan terkait syarat sah perjanjian.Kata kunci: kesetaraan pihak, perjanjian kerja, keabsahan perjanjian, ratio decidendi. ABSTRACTThe Constitutional Court Decision Number 13/PUUXV/2017 related to the cancellation of rules regarding the prohibition of co-worker marriage, is considered as a form of guaranteeing the fulfilment of human rights, which is the right to form a family through legal marriage as stated in Article 28B paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. However, the decision contains legal considerations related to the principle of freedom of contract as one of the legal requirements of an agreement, and the perception of inequality in work agreement. It is interesting to examine the legal construction of equality of parties in work agreement as the principle of freedom of contract is one of the principles in the agreement indicating no defects on the parties' will. Then, the further question is whether it is right that work agreement does not provide equality to the parties as argued by the Constitutional Court. What are the juridical consequences of the Constitutional Court to establish the principle of freedom of contract as one of the legal requirements of an agreement, which is contrary to the provisions of Article 1320 of the Civil Code? This is a normative legal research through case study to examine the Constitutional Court Decision Number 13/PUU-XV/2017. This research uses statutory and conceptual approach based on descriptive-qualitative data analysis. The results of this study at least indicate that in the decision, especially in legal considerations, the Constitutional Court has provided ambiguity in legal considerations, which in fact contradicted the regulations regarding the legal terms of an agreement.Keywords: equality of parties, work agreement, validity of contract, ratio decidendi.]]>
