Respons Konstitusional Larangan Calon Anggota Dewan Perwakilan Daerah sebagai Pengurus Partai Politik - Faiz, Pan Mohamad; Winata, Muhammad Reza (Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia, 2019)
Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK) Nomor 30/PUU-XVI/2018 bertanggal 23 Juli 2018 menjadi salah satu putusan penting bagi desain lembaga perwakilan di Indonesia. Dalam Putusan tersebut, MK menyatakan bahwa pengurus partai politik dilarang menjadi calon anggota Dewan Perwakilan Daerah. Namun, tindak lanjut dari Putusan ini memicu polemik ketatanegaraan. Sebab, terjadi kontradiksi mengenai waktu pemberlakuan larangan tersebut akibat adanya perbedaan pemaknaan terhadap Putusan MK di dalam Putusan MA, PTUN, dan Bawaslu. MK menyatakan bahwa Putusannya berlaku sejak Pemilu 2019. Akan tetapi, Putusan MA, PTUN, dan Bawaslu tersebut menyatakan larangan tersebut berlaku setelah Pemilu 2019. Artikel ini mengkaji kontradiksi Putusan-Putusan tersebut dengan menggunakan tiga pisau analisis, yaitu: (1) finalitas putusan; (2) respons terhadap putusan; dan (3) validitas atau keberlakuan norma. Dengan menggunakan doktrin responsivitas terhadap putusan pengadilan dari Tom Ginsburg, artikel ini menyimpulkan bahwa Keputusan KPU yang tetap kukuh memberlakukan larangan bagi pengurus partai politik sebagai calon anggota DPD sejak Pemilu tahun 2019 sesungguhnya merupakan tindakan formal konstitusional karena telah mengikuti (comply) penafsiran konstitusional yang terkandung dalam Putusan MK. Di lain sisi, tindakan KPU juga merupakan bentuk yang sekaligus mengesampingkan (overrule) Putusan MA, PTUN, dan Bawaslu. Meskipun demikian, respons KPU tersebut dapat dibenarkan karena Putusan MK memiliki objek dan dasar pengujian lebih tinggi dalam hierarki peraturan perundang-undangan, sehingga memiliki validitas hukum lebih tinggi dari Putusan MA, PTUN, dan Bawaslu. Dengan demikian, tindakan KPU yang konsisten mengikuti Putusan MK tersebut merupakan respons konstitusional yang memiliki justifikasi hukum dan konstitusi, sebagaimana juga dikuatkan oleh Dewan Kehormatan Penyelenggara Pemilu (DKPP), baik secara hukum maupun etik.The Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 30/PUU-XVI/2018 on 23 July 2018 is one of the important decisions concerning the constitutional design of parliament in Indonesia. The Constitutional Court decided that political party officials and functionaries are banned from running as the Regional Representative Council candidates. Nonetheless, the implementation of the decision has triggered a political polemic because there is a contradiction concerning the timing of the prohibition due to different interpretations towards the Constitutional Court Decision in the Supreme Court Decision Number 64/P/HUM/2018, the Administrative Court Decision Number 242/G/SPPU/2018/PTUN-JKT and the Election Supervisory Body Decision Number 008/LP/PL/ADM/RI/00/XII/2018. The Constitutional Court explicitly stated that its decision must be implemented since the 2019 General Election. However, the Supreme Court Decision, the Administrative Court Decision, and the Election Supervisory Body Decision decided that the prohibition shall be applied after the 2019 General Election. This article examines the contradictions between those decisions using three different approaches, namely: (1) finality of decision; (2) response to decision; and (3) validity or the applicability of norms. Based on the responsivity doctrine to the court decisions introduced by Tom Ginsburg, this article concludes that the General Election Commission decision that strongly holds its standing to ban political party officials and functionaries from running as the Regional Representative Council candidates since the 2019 General Election is a formally constitutional decision because it has complied with the constitutional interpretation contained in the Constitutional Court Decision. On the other hand, the General Election Commission decision has also overruled the Supreme Court Decision, the Administrative Court Decision, and the Election Supervisory Body Decision. Nevertheless, the General Election Commission?s response is appropriate because the Constitutional Court Decision has an object and a constitutional ground of judicial review that are higher in the hierarchy of laws and regulations in Indonesia. Therefore, the validity and the legal effect of the Constitutional Court Decision are also higher compared to the Supreme Court Decision, the Administrative Court Decision, or the Election Supervisory Body Decision. Thus, the General Election Commission decision that consistently complied with the Constitutional Court decision is a constitutional response that can be justified.