Özet:

Norms are behavioral guidelines in the Indonesian legal state. Norms continue to exist in the legislation and juridical consequences of constitutional court decisions, and in particular, that of the Constitutional Court. Legal norms have principles that are applied to a wider hierarchy of legal norms and the production of legislation. In essence, the Constitutional Court's rulings have consequences on the actions of the government and therefore the action of governance. Including decision norms in the Constitutional Court's ruling has juridical consequences for the hierarchy of regulations and state legal actions in carrying out the function of government. This article aims to find out how to apply decision norms if there an identical or related decision exists within a different judicial institution. In government institutions bound by the Constitutional Court's decisions, application of decision norms resulted in chaos for the application and enforcement of the law. The implementing agency is faced with the same legal product, namely a verdict in another judicial institution. This causes no legal certainty. Rather than a solution or outcome, implementing agencies are faced with an identical legal response yet no legal certainty. The absence of legal certainty has consequences for government institutions that are bound by the Constitutional Court's decision. By utilizing a hierarchy of legal norms, the issue of rigidity and uncertainty caused by decision norms can be resolved. Likewise, in the legislature, the Constitutional Court's decision is the source of making legal norms. As the Constitutional Court’s decision is the source of legal norm production in the legislature, espousing a hierarchy of legal norms will enable laws and regulations that are formed to reflect justice, certainty and benefit.

Anahtar Kelimeler: