PERBEDAAN TAFSIR MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI DALAM MEMUTUS PERKARA PEMILIHAN UMUM SERENTAK
Authors: Suparto Suparto 
Published: December 2017

ABSTRAKSelama ini pemilu presiden dan pemilu legislatif dilakukan secara terpisah atau tidak serentak. Pemilu legislatif selalu dilakukan sebelum pemilu presiden dan wakil presiden. Pemilihan umum yang dilakukan secara terpisah dianggap lebih banyak dampak negatifnya serta tidak sesuai dengan UUD NRI 1945. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah deskriptif analitis dengan pendekatan peraturan perundangundangan. Rumusan masalahnya adalah bagaimanakah pertimbangan hakim konstitusi dalam memutus Putusan Nomor 14/PUU-XI/2013 sehingga terjadi perbedaan dengan putusan sebelumnya Nomor 51-52-59/PUUVI/ 2008 terkait dengan pelaksanaan pemilu serentak. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan pertimbangan hakim konstitusi dalam memutus Putusan Nomor 14/PUUXI/ 2013 tentang pengujian Undang-Undang Nomor 42 Tahun 2008 tentang Pemilihan Umum Presiden dan Wakil Presiden terjadi inkonsistensi. Putusan Nomor 14/ PUU-XI/2013 memutuskan bahwa pemilu presiden dan wakil presiden harus dilaksanakan secara bersamaan dengan pemilu anggota DPR, DPR, dan DPRD. Sedangkan dalam putusan sebelumnya yaitu Putusan Nomor 51-52-59/PUU-VI/2008 pada pengujian pasal dan undang-undang yang sama (Pasal 3 ayat (5) Undang- Undang Nomor 42 Tahun 2008), Mahkamah Konstitusi memutuskan bahwa pemilu presiden dan wakil presiden yang dilaksanakan setelah pemilu anggota DPR, DPD, dan DPRD (tidak serentak) adalah tidak bertentangan dengan UUD NRI 1945 (konstitusional). Terjadinya pertentangan putusan ini antara lain disebabkan oleh perbedaan pilihan penafsiran konstitusi.Kata kunci: inkonsistensi, mahkamah konstitusi, pemilu serentak. ABSTRACTDuring this time, the presidential and legislative elections are conducted separately or not simultaneously. The Legislative Elections are always carried out prior to the General Elections of the President and Vice President. The general election is conducted separately as considerably having more negative impacts and inconsistency with the 1945 Constitution. This analysis uses descriptive analysis method with the pertinent laws and regulations approach. The formulation of the issue is what the Constitutional Court Justices took into consideration in its Decision Number 14/PUU-XI/2013 leading to differences to that of its previous Decision Number 51- 52-59/PUU-VI/2008 concerning the implementation of simultaneous elections. The analysis results show inconsistencies in the consideration of the Constitutional Court Justices in ruling the case through the Decision Number 14/PUU-X/2013 on the judicial review of Law Number 42 of 2008 concerning the General Elections of the President and Vice President. The Constitutional Court Decision Number 14/PUU-X/2013 decided that the General Election of the President and Vice President should be implemented simultaneously with the Legislative Election for the Member of the House of Representatives, the Regional Representatives Council, and the Regional House of Representatives. As for the previous decision, the Constitutional Court Decision Number 51-52-59/PUU-VI/2008 on the judicial review of the same article and law (Article 3 (5) of Law Number 42 of 2008), the Constitutional Court decided that the elections of the President and Vice President conducted after the Legislative Election for the Member of the House of Representatives, the Regional Representatives Council, and the Regional House of Representatives (not simultaneously) is not contradictory to the 1945 Constitution. The contradiction of these decisions is partly due to the variety of interpretation on the constitution.Keywords: inconsistency, the constitutional court, simultaneous elections.