<![CDATA[ABSTRAK Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK) dikenal sebagai garda akhir dalam melindungi konstitusi serta demokrasi negeri ini. Namun dalam perkembangannya, terdapat celah dalam MK itu sendiri dalam menjalankan kewajibannya sehingga menimbulkan potensi tercorengnya konstitusi dan demokrasi. Celah tersebut akan sangat berakibat fatal jika tidak diatasi, mengingat produk hukum MK bersifat final and binding sehingga tidak dapat dilakukan upaya hukum apapun meskipun dihasilkan melalui cara-cara yang bertentangan dengan etika hakim konstitusi. Sentimen ini didasarkan pada kasus-kasus hakim konstitusi dalam beberapa tahun terakhir yang dinilai mencederai konstitusi dan demokrasi negara ini, yang didasari oleh adanya pelanggaran terhadap kode etik Hakim Konstitusi. Sejatinya, pengaturan terkait kode etik Hakim Konstitusi sendiri telah dilegitimasi dalam prinsip Sapta Karsa Hutama sebagaimana diatur dalam Peraturan Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia Nomor 9 Tahun 2006 Tentang Pemberlakuan Deklarasi Kode Etik dan Perilaku Hakim Konstitusi (PMK 9/2006). Namun secara empiris hingga saat ini, penegakkan kode etik Hakim Konstitusi di Indonesia dinilai masih sangat rendah. Hal tersebut merupakan implikasi nyata dari kewenangan Majelis Kehormatan Mahkamah Konstitusi (MKMK) yang hanya bersifat represif. Berdasarkan paparan tersebut, maka lahirlah sebuah urgensi untuk memperluas kewenangan MKMK sebagai guardian of ethics Hakim Konstitusi. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode yuridis normatif dengan menggunakan pendekatan perundang-undangan dan konseptual, dengan menganalisis bahan-bahan hukum yang dibutuhkan untuk menemukan urgensi dan cara memperluas kewenangan MKMK. Penelitian ini sendiri menyatakan bahwa MKMK memerlukan sebuah kewenangan intervensionis dalam dinamika MK agar mampu memberi penanganan preventif terhadap pelanggaran etik yang berimplikasi pada cederanya konstitusi dan demokrasi. Intervensi tersebut diwujudkan dalam bentuk Panel MKMK, yang merupakan salah satu tahap beracara peradilan MK. Tahapan ini meliputi mekanisme uji kelayakan hakim konstitusi sebelum menangani perkara MK lebih lanjut. Hal ini ditujukan agar MKMK mampu menegakkan Prinsip Sapta Karsa Hutama dengan lebih optimal, guna meminimalisir adanya suatu pelanggaran kode etik oleh Hakim Konstitusi. Kata Kunci: Panel MKMK, Majelis Kehormatan Mahkamah Konstitusi, Prinsip Sapta Karsa Hutama, Hakim Konstitusi ABSTRACT The Constitutional Court (MK) is known as the final line in protecting the constitution and democracy of this country. However, in its development, there are gaps in the Constitutional Court itself in carrying out its obligations, causing the potential for the constitution and democracy to be tarnished. This gap will be very fatal if not addressed, considering that the Constitutional Court's legal products are final and binding so that no legal remedy can be taken even though they are produced through ways that are contrary to the ethics of constitutional judges. This sentiment is based on the cases of constitutional judges in recent years that are considered to have harmed the constitution and democracy of this country, which are based on violations of the code of ethics of Constitutional Judges. In fact, the arrangements related to the code of ethics of Constitutional Judges themselves have been legitimized in the principle of Sapta Karsa Hutama as stipulated in the Constitutional Court Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia Number 9 of 2006 concerning the Implementation of the Declaration of the Code of Ethics and Conduct of Constitutional Judges (PMK 9/2006). However, empirically until now, the enforcement of the code of ethics of Constitutional Judges in Indonesia is still considered very low. This is a real implication of the authority of the Honorary Assembly of the Constitutional Court (MKMK) which is only repressive. Based on this exposure, an urgency was born to expand the authority of the MKMK as the guardian of ethics of Constitutional Judges. This study uses normative juridical methods using legislative and conceptual approaches, by analyzing the legal materials needed to find urgency and how to expand the authority of the MKMK. This research itself states that the MKMK needs an interventionist authority in the dynamics of the Constitutional Court in order to be able to provide preventive handling of ethical violations that have implications for the injury of the constitution and democracy. The intervention is manifested in the form of the MKMK Panel, which is one of the stages of the Constitutional Court's judicial proceedings. This stage includes the mechanism for the feasibility test of constitutional judges before handling further Constitutional Court cases. This is intended so that the MKMK is able to enforce the Sapta Karsa Hutama Principle more optimally, in order to minimize a violation of the code of ethics by Constitutional Judges. Keywords: MKMK Panel, Constitutional Court Honorary Assembly, Sapta Karsa Hutama Principles, Constitutional Judges ]]>
