ANALISIS YURIDIS KEWENANGAN DEWAN PERWAKILAN RAKYAT DALAM MENGUSULKAN PEMBERHENTIAN HAKIM MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI (STUDI KASUS HAKIM ASWANTO)

This study analyzes the authority of the House of Representatives (DPR) in proposing the dismissal of Constitutional Court (MK) judges, with a focus on the case study of the dismissal of Judge Aswanto. As a constitutional state, the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia guarantees an independent judiciary that is free from interference by other institutions. However, the DPR's unilateral proposal to dismiss Judge Aswanto has sparked a constitutional debate regarding the limits of the legislative branch's authority over the judiciary. This study uses a normative juridical method with a legislative, conceptual, and case study approach. The results of the study show that the DPR's action in proposing the dismissal of Judge Aswanto is unconstitutional. Based on the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, the DPR has the attributive authority to propose the appointment of judge candidates, and likewise, based on the Constitutional Court Law, the DPR is one of the institutions that proposes judges for the Constitutional Court. but it does not have the authority to propose the dismissal of judges in the middle of their term, except at the request of the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court for limited reasons such as serious ethical violations or criminal offenses. The DPR's action, which was based on an evaluation of the performance of the judge's decisions, violates the principles of security of tenure and independence of the judiciary, and undermines the checks and balances mechanism. Consequently, Presidential Decree No. 114/P/2022, which ratified the dismissal, is considered legally flawed because the president should have been able to refuse to issue a Presidential Decree based on an unconstitutional proposal from the House of Representatives. This study concludes that the authority of the proposing institution is limited to the initial selection process, and regulatory clarification is needed to prevent political intervention that could weaken the independence of the judiciary exercised by the Constitutional Court.