ANALISIS YURIDIS PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH AGUNG NOMOR 23 P/HUM/2024 TENTANG UJI MATERIL PKPU NOMOR 9 TAHUN 2020 TERHADAP UNDANG-UNDANG NO 10 TAHUN 2016 DALAM PERSPEKTIF INDEPENDENSI KEKUASAAN KEHAKIMAN

This research is motivated by the absence of a systematic analytical framework for assessing the legal rationality of the Supreme Court’s decisions in judicial review cases of regulations subordinate to statutes, particularly in the context of the judge’s role as an interpreter bound by the principles of the rule of law and judicial independence. This study focuses, first, on analyzing the legal reasoning behind the Supreme Court Decision Number 23 P/HUM/2024, which reviews KPU Regulation Number 9 of 2020 against Law Number 10 of 2016; second, on evaluating the legal implications of the decision for the independence of the judiciary. The objective of this research is to evaluate whether the judges' legal reasoning was formulated based on the applicable legal norms and to illustrate the form of a judgment that reflects judicial independence. This study employs a normative legal research method with statutory, case-based, and conceptual approaches. Legal sources were collected through literature study and analyzed using a descriptive-analytical technique. The findings reveal that the legal reasoning in the decision was not constructed on a coherent, systematic, and consistent argumentative foundation.
The judges referred to repealed legal norms, juxtaposed provisions from different domains of authority, and formulated arguments that exceeded the constitutional limits of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. This indicates a deviation from the principle of legality and adherence to positive law, while also opening interpretive space that potentially weakens judicial independence. The legal implication is thediminished legitimacy of the decision, as it is not based on objective, rational legal
reasoning consistent with the principles of a rule-of-law state. This research recommends that the Supreme Court strengthen the argumentative structure of its decisions to ensure transparency, accountability, and compliance with constitutional limits