View of Moral Paradigm in the Establishment of Regulation on Parliamentary Thresholds: An Indonesian Implementation

(1)

1

Moral Paradigm in the Establishment of Regulation on Parliamentary Thresholds: An Indonesian Implementation

Sholahuddin Al-Fatih¹, Ahmad Siboy²

1Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang, Indonesia E-mail: [email protected]

2Universitas Islam Malang, Indonesia E-mail: [email protected]

Submitted: November 26, 2020; Reviewed: June 8, 2021; Accepted: January 7, 2022

Article Info Abstract

Keywords:

Moral; Paradigm; Parliamentary Threshold.

DOI:

10.25041/fiatjustisia.v16no1.2140

The moral paradigm in establishing legal norms about parliamentary thresholds in legislative elections is studied through historical, conceptual, and statutory approaches. Figures' perspectives on the moral paradigm and nature's laws are an analysis benchmark. This research is a legal analysis with a conceptual approach. The main objective of this research was to analyse the moral paradigm in the formation of laws regarding parliamentary thresholds in Indonesian elections.

According to this research, the establishment and implementation of parliamentary threshold legal norms cannot meet the main legal objectives, namely justice, because parliamentary thresholds are designed to limit political parties' eligibility for parliament in subsequent elections. Therefore, the government canceled the application of the parliamentary threshold through lawmakers and the Constitutional Court in the next election.

A. Introduction

The law theory is an attempt to explain the law's phenomenon.¹ The law's explanation is closely related to the underlying paradigm, which makes the law be interpreted and understood by everyone.² The Paradigm phrase comes

1 Bambang Sugiri, “Lapisan-Lapisan Studi Tentang Hukum” (2020); Bambang Sugiri,

“Lapisan Ilmu Hukum” (2020).

2 Sugeng Wibowo, “Integrasi Epistimologi Hukum Transendental Sebagai Paradigma Hukum Indonesia,” Jurnal Hukum Legal Standing 1, no. 1 (2017): 61–82, https://doi.org/10.24269/ls.v1i1.570.

ISSN: 1978-5186 | e-ISSN: 2477-6238.

http://jurnal.fh.unila.ac.id/index.php/fiat

(2)

2

from paradeigma, which means pattern or model of thinking in Greek.³ Whereas in English, paradigm means example, design, or model.⁴

The definition of paradigm is more complicated in the academic environment. Paradigm is frequently interpreted as a mindset requiring an interpretive understanding of a person (individual or grouping) within the entire knowledge group and theories mastered with belief in the fundamental idea.⁵ Most intellectual community members regard the paradigm as a 'sain' (solence) because of its effectiveness in explaining complex processes, ideas, or data sets.⁶

A paradigm is also a frame of mind that includes various beliefs and standards, a framework that establishes the scope of everything considered valid in a field, discipline, or branch of science where the paradigm is applied or used.⁷ The diversity of paradigm definitions can be interpreted as a condition that allows humans to judge things differently. Because different paradigms produce different assessments when applied to the same object.

There are three known paradigms in understanding the science of law, namely the moral paradigm, rational paradigm,⁸ and science paradigm.⁹ This research discusses the moral paradigm in forming laws on parliamentary thresholds. According to Arend Lipjhart, the parliamentary threshold is the minimum vote obtained by eligible participants to obtain seats at the district level or the minimum percentage that the political party of the election participants must receive from the total votes cast by national voters.

Threshold, electoral threshold, or parliamentary threshold is usually stated with the valid votes' percentage.¹⁰ Meanwhile, August Mellaz defines the threshold that must be exceeded by a political party to send its

3 Sugiri, “Lapisan-Lapisan Studi Tentang Hukum.”

4 Erlyn Indarti, “Diskresi Dan Paradigma” (Semarang: Universitas Diponegoro, 2010), p. 1- 80.

6 Erlyn Indarti, “Diskresi Dan Paradigma.”

7 A.F. Chalmers, What Is This Thing Called Science?, 3rd ed. (St. Lucia: University of

Queensland Press, 1982), p. 1-264,

https://ebookppsunp.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/alan_chalmers_what_is_this_thing_called_

sciencebookfi-org.pdf.

8 Kelik Wardiono and Khudzaifah Dimyati, “Basis Epistemologis Paradigma Rasional Dalam Ilmu Hukum: Sebuah Deskripsi Tentang Asumsi-Asumsi Dasar Teori Hukum Murni-Hans Kelsen,” Jurnal Dinamika Hukum 14, no. 3 (2014): 369–83, https://doi.org/10.20884/1.jdh.2014.14.3.304.

10 Arend Lijphart, Patterns of Democracy, Government Forms & Performance in Thirty-Six Countries, 2nd ed. (Yale: Yale University Press, 2012), p. 1-348, https://e- edu.nbu.bg/pluginfile.php/830138/mod_resource/content/1/Lijphart%2C A. Patterns of Democracy - Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries %282012%29.pdf.

(3)

3

representatives to a representative institution.¹¹ Some countries can be expressed in terms of minimum seats commonly used in elections.¹²

Threshold or electoral threshold was first introduced in Indonesian elections, referring to the provisions in Article 39 paragraph (3) of Law No.

3 of 1999 on General Elections.¹³ The electoral threshold was defined as the minimum threshold for the party to participate in the next period's election.¹⁴ The application of parliamentary thresholds in Indonesian elections frequently sparks community debate, leading to the Constitutional Court reviewing electoral and parliamentary threshold norms.¹⁵ The testing focuses on protecting human rights, specifically the civil and political rights of citizens who are systemically considered castrated by enacting the threshold mechanism due to the agency wasting many voter votes. However, until simultaneous elections were held in 2019,¹⁶ Legal norms on parliamentary thresholds remained.¹⁷

Based on this background, the author attempts to analyse the moral paradigm in forming laws on parliamentary thresholds in Indonesian elections. The author examines the history of parliamentary thresholds' implementation in elections and their relevance based on moral paradigms.

The authors hope to find a relationship between the moral paradigm and establishing laws on parliamentary thresholds through this research. This research is expected to contribute to rule, especially in theoretical studies and philosophy of law, election law, and human rights studies. The novelty of this research will make a significant contribution to determining the means, size, and function of the parliamentary threshold in the legislative

11 August Mellaz, “Praktek Penerapan Keberlakuan 3,5 Persen Ambang Batas Parlemen Secara Nasional Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 2012 Tentang Pemilu” (Jakarta, 2012), p.

1-6.

12 Sholahuddin Al-Fatih, “Akibat Hukum Regulasi Tentang Threshold Dalam Pemilihan Umum Legislatif Dan Pemilihan Presiden: Kajian Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 52/PUU-X/2012 Dan Nomor 14/PUU-XI/2013,” Jurnal Yudisial 12, no. 1 (2019): 17–38, https://doi.org/10.29123/jy.v12i1.258.

13 Sholahuddin Al-Fatih, “Penerapan Threshold Dalam Pemilu,” Audito Comparative Law Journal 1, no. 2 (2020): 78–84, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.22219/audito.v1i2.13973.

14 Sholahuddin Al-Fatih, Muchammad Ali Safaat, and Muhammad Dahlan, “Reformulasi Parliamentary Threshold Yang Berkeadilan Dalam Pemilu Legislatif Di Indonesia,” Jurnal

Hukum, 2014, 1–20,

http://hukum.studentjournal.ub.ac.id/index.php/hukum/article/viewFile/1018/1007.

15 Al-Fatih, “Akibat Hukum Regulasi Tentang Threshold Dalam Pemilihan Umum Legislatif Dan Pemilihan Presiden: Kajian Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 52/PUU-X/2012 Dan Nomor 14/PUU-XI/2013.”

16 Fitria Esfandiari and Sholahuddin Al-Fatih, “Initiating A Permanent Electoral Body to Resolve Dignified Election Disputes: Assessing The Effectiveness of Gakkumdu,” Yustisia Jurnal Hukum 9, no. 3 (2020): 333, https://doi.org/10.20961/yustisia.v9i3.44437.

17 Sholahuddin Al-Fatih, “Electoral Regulation in Indonesia : Is It Modern Law ?,” Unnes Law Journal 6, no. 2 (2020): 205–16, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.15294/ulj.v6i2.41627.

(4)

4

election. Because the approach used to determine the parliamentary threshold's function, purpose, and magnitude is more political.¹⁸

Legal research is a study that examines norms related to overlap, emptiness, and blurring of existing models.¹⁹ This research is a type of legal analysis with a conceptual approach.²⁰ The concept of the moral paradigm in law formation is used as a measuring instrument. The examples discussed in this research are associated with the moral paradigm in establishing parliamentary threshold laws. The author seeks new arguments concerning the moral paradigm in establishing parliamentary threshold regulations through prescriptive analysis.²¹

B. Discussion

Law is frequently described as a multi-paradigmatic science.²² As a multi-paradigmatic science, it is only natural that the science of law reflects and interprets various disciplines, both those that describe and sometimes cross each other. Thus, viewing a legal norm through the lens of fields has only correlation and association with other branches or disciplines.

As stated in the introduction, three known paradigms in understanding the science of law are moral paradigm, rational paradigm, and scientific paradigm. The moral paradigm arises with the Aristotelian paradigm in the social sciences (Aristotelian paradigm = Teleological-Finalistic paradigm = returning the entire truth of the universe to God's righteousness). The righteousness paradigm is also known as the Ideal Law/God's Law, and its development has manifested into nature's thinking law. This research will only discuss the moral paradigm of establishing legal norms regarding parliamentary thresholds.²³

In moral paradigm mentioned that law is God's creation in the supernatural dimension. The law embodies the orderly universe's realization, manifesting as perfect harmony, lovely and beautiful, reflecting God's ultimate will. The law's nature is the universal and cordate truth and justice's principles. Thus, an amoral act constitutes an unjust and unlawful act wherever the doctrine applies. A genuine understanding is that the law

19 Irwansyah, Penelitian Hukum: Pilihan Metode & Praktik Penulisan Artikel, ed. Ahsan Yunus (Yogyakarta: Mirra Buana Media, 2020), p. 184.

20 Peter Mahmud Marzuki, Penelitian Hukum: Edisi Revisi, 13th ed. (Jakarta: Kencana, 2017), p. 1-259.

21 Peter Mahmud Marzuki.

22 Erlyn Indarti, “Diskresi Dan Paradigma.”

(5)

5

represents religious values disseminated by the prophets and their successors.²⁴

In the moral paradigm, the law is an ideal morally substantive God, and thus, the normative character is all-around teaching and requires (law as what ought to be).²⁵ Some nations and civilizations throughout history have used moral paradigms derived from nature's laws/morals God in the formation of their rules, including 1) Babylonia; 2) Jews; 3) Hinduism and Indian Buddhism; 4) Confucius China; 5) Ancient Greeks; 6) Romans; 7) Medieval Europe; 8) Ancient Arabian Peninsulas; 9) British Monarchies;

10) Anglo Saxons; 11) French; 12) Founding Fathers of the United States, and 13) Fragments of the Soviet Union.²⁶ Most countries that establish their rules on the moral paradigm derived from nature's laws/morals God's focus on the law to achieve justice.²⁷

Thomas Aquinas, a key figure in the natural law and moral paradigm, stated that rules not founded on morals and ethics are bad laws that should not be imposed on society. The law is not a valueless object but a value's source about right-wrong, good-bad, or just-unjust that makes the law meaningful to human life.²⁸ Similarly, Socrates views the law as a welfare order that prioritizes social justice. Thus, the law was not created for hedonism and misuse of conduct.²⁹

Based on the description, if looking at the history of the establishment of legal norms on the parliamentary threshold (electoral),³⁰ the former means of the parliamentary threshold limit the number of political parties participating in elections and elected into parliament.³¹ Furthermore, Constitutional Judges who decide parliamentary threshold argued that parliamentary threshold implementation in Indonesian elections is fair and fulfilling justice

24 Soetandyo Wignjosoebroto, “Memperbincangkan ‘Hukum’ Dari Perspektif Filsafat:

Paradigma Hukum Dan Pergeserannya Dalam Sejarah,” Jurnal Digest Epistema 1, no. 1 (2011): 7–12, https://epistema.or.id/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/digest_epistema_vol1.pdf.

25 Lord Bingham, “The Rule of Law,” The Cambridge Law Journal 66, no. 1 (2007): 67–85, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197307000037.

26 Munir Fuady, Teori-Teori Besar Dalam Hukum: Grand Theory, 3rd ed. (Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media Group, 2014), p. 1-330.

27 Syofyan Hadi, “Kekuatan Mengikat Hukum Dalam Perspektif Mazhab Hukum Alam Dan Mazhab Positivisme Hukum,” Legality : Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum 25, no. 1 (2018): 86, https://doi.org/10.22219/jihl.v25i1.5992.

28 Hilaire McCoubrey and Nigel D White, Textbook on Jurisprudence (London: Blackstone Press Limited, 1996), p. 59.

29 Hadi, “Kekuatan Mengikat Hukum Dalam Perspektif Mazhab Hukum Alam Dan Mazhab Positivisme Hukum.”

30 Sholahuddin Al-Fatih, “Parliamentary Threshold in Integrative Legal Perspective:

Indonesian Case,” Jambe Law Journal 3, no. 2 (2020): 103–17, https://doi.org/10.22437/jlj.3.2.103-117.

(6)

6

for all parties who participate in the election. So, they called the parliamentary threshold a constitutional regulation. However, many voters went uncounted during the implementation of the parliamentary threshold.

On the other hand, limiting does not meet the justice element by the moral paradigm's main objectives. The law guides justice's value and measures the law's fairness or unfairness.³² By implementing parliamentary thresholds, some political parties of election participants failed to qualify for parliament, votes from neglected constituencies, and the legitimacy of elected representatives became weak.³³ So, when the parliamentary threshold is applied, people who do not meet the parliamentary threshold will face discrimination and unfair treatment.³⁴

According to John Rawls, injustice can be viewed from a weaning aspect that makes others suffer. In two perspectives on justice, John Rawls highlights justice's achievement through the value of equal freedom for everyone and equality of opportunity.³⁵ The parliamentary threshold favours major parties with consistent votes in each election, making suffering difficult.³⁶ More than the parliamentary threshold party creates an unequal opportunity situation, where major parties have a chance to enter parliament.

In contrast, minority and new parties do not have such options.

Mathematically, major and old parties have a better chance of receiving votes and meeting the parliamentary threshold than minor or new parties. It will be difficult for the new party to gain public support because its performance has not been felt directly by the people. In contrast, older and major parties have participated in election contests with various experiences to gain public attention and support. Therefore, applying parliamentary thresholds can harm a person's internal and external morals,³⁷ affecting the justice's ability to fulfil the law's primary goal.

So, based on the moral paradigm, establishing legal norms regarding parliamentary thresholds is unsuitable for applying in Indonesia. The application of parliamentary thresholds needs to be reviewed, including the amount and scope of validity.³⁸ Indonesia's legal mind is dynamic and

32 Peter Mahmud Marzuki, Pengantar Ilmu Hukum (Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media Group, 2009).

33 Al-Fatih, “Penerapan Threshold Dalam Pemilu.”

34 Al-Fatih, “Electoral Regulation in Indonesia : Is It Modern Law ?”

35 John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999), p. 1-538, https://www.cita.or.id/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/John-Rawls-A-Theory-of-Justice-

Belknap-Press-1999.pdf.

36 Nur Kholis, “Parliamentary Threshold And Political Rights Limitation,” Journal of Law

and Legal Reform 1, no. 3 (2020): 445–56,

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.15294/jllr.v1i3.36702.

37 Lon L. Fuller, The Morality of Law (Virginia: Yale Law School, 1963), p. 1-273.

38 Sholahuddin Al-Fatih, “Implementasi Parliamentary Threshold Dalam Pemilihan Anggota Dprd Provinsi Dan Dprd Kabupaten/Kota,” Ahkam: Jurnal Hukum Islam 6, no. 2 (2018):

363–88, https://doi.org/10.21274/ahkam.2018.6.2.363-388; Fahri Bachmid, “Eksistensi

(7)

7

holistic rather than rigid.³⁹ Hopefully, the research based on the moral paradigm will provide lawmakers and the Constitutional Court as an interpreter of a legal norm with an argument that emphasizes justice values in applying the parliamentary thresholds. The Constituent Court should not limit the parliamentary threshold to open legal policy.⁴⁰

The law is an order that seeks to influence human behaviour to fulfil needs in a morally adequate or fair manner.⁴¹ The community's prevailing legal norms will have legitimacy and legality due to order and morality building.⁴² The Constitutional Court needs to be bolder in deciding the parliamentary threshold by overturning the norm to achieve the law's primary goal (justice).⁴³

C. Conclusion

Based on the discussion, threshold parliament legal norms' establishment and implementation cannot fulfil justice in the moral paradigm because parliamentary thresholds are applied to limit political parties following elections and qualify for parliament. Therefore, the government cancelled the parliamentary threshold application through lawmakers and the Constitutional Court in the next election.

Acknowledgements

This research was made possible with the Faculty of Law, University of Muhammadiyah Malang, Malang, East Java, Indonesia. I express my

Kedaulatan Rakyat Dan Implementasi Parliamentary Threshold Dalam Sistem Pemilihan Umum Di Indonesia,” SIGn Jurnal Hukum 2, no. 2 (2020): 87–103, https://doi.org/10.37276/sjh.v2i2.83.

39 A Hidayat, “Orientasi Pemikiran Hukum Berkarakter Keindonesiaan Dalam Perspektif Teori Hukum,” Jurnal Pembaharuan Hukum 2, no. 2 (2015): 162–72, https://doi.org/10.26532/jph.v2i2.1426.

40 Vanu Fendabi, “Penerapan Ambang Batas Presidensil (Presidential Threshold) Sebagai Kebijakan Hukum Terbuka Dalam Pemilihan Umum Di Indonesia (Analisis Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor.53/PUUXV/ 2017)” (UIN Syarif Hidayatullah, 2019); Mardian Wibowo, “Menakar Konstitusionalitas Sebuah Kebijakan Hukum Terbuka Dalam Pengujian Undang-Undang,” Jurnal Konstitusi 12, no. 2 (2016): 196, https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1221;

Muhammad Addi Fauzani and Fandi Nu Rohman, “Urgensi Rekonstruksi Mahkamah Konstitusi Dalam Memberikan Pertimbangan Kebijakan Hukum Terbuka (Open Legal Policy),” Justitia Et Pax: Jurnal Hukum 35, no. 5 (2019): 127–52, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.24002/jep.v35i2.2501.

41 Adi Sulistiyono, “Menggapai Mutiara Keadilan: Membangun Pengadilan Yang Independen Dengan Paradigma Moral,” Jurnal Ilmu Hukum 8, no. 2 (2005): 152–84.

42 Suadamara Ananda, “Hukum Dan Moralitas,” Pro Justisia 24, no. 3 (2006): 301–8, https://journal.unpar.ac.id/index.php/projustitia/article/download/1163/1130.

43 Agus Setiawan, “Penalaran Hukum Yang Mampu Mewujudkan Tujuan Hukum Secara Proporsional,” Jurnal Hukum Mimbar Justitia 3, no. 2 (2017): 204, https://doi.org/10.35194/jhmj.v3i2.257; Subiharta, “Moralitas Hukum Dalam Hukum Praksis Sebagai Suatu Keutamaan (Legal Morality in Practical Law as a Virtue),” Jurnal Hukum Dan Peradilan 4, no. 3 (2015): 385–98, https://doi.org/10.25216/jhp.4.3.2015.385-398.

(8)

8

gratitude to the Doctoral Degree, Faculty of Law, Brawijaya University, under the advice of Dr. Bambang Sugiri in Legal Theory class. Moreover, thank B's classmate, who provides many materials and discussions on this topic.

References

Al-Fatih, Sholahuddin. “Akibat Hukum Regulasi Tentang Threshold Dalam Pemilihan Umum Legislatif Dan Pemilihan Presiden: Kajian Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 52/PUU-X/2012 Dan Nomor 14/PUU- XI/2013.” Jurnal Yudisial 12, no. 1 (2019): 17–38.

https://doi.org/10.29123/jy.v12i1.258.

———. “Electoral Regulation in Indonesia : Is It Modern Law ?” Unnes

Law Journal 6, no. 2 (2020): 205–16.

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.15294/ulj.v6i2.41627.

———. “Implementasi Parliamentary Threshold Dalam Pemilihan Anggota Dprd Provinsi Dan Dprd Kabupaten/Kota.” Ahkam: Jurnal Hukum

Islam 6, no. 2 (2018): 363–88.

https://doi.org/10.21274/ahkam.2018.6.2.363-388.

———. “Parliamentary Threshold in Integrative Legal Perspective:

Indonesian Case.” Jambe Law Journal 3, no. 2 (2020): 103–17.

https://doi.org/10.22437/jlj.3.2.103-117.

———. “Penerapan Threshold Dalam Pemilu.” Audito Comparative Law

Journal 1, no. 2 (2020): 78–84.

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.22219/audito.v1i2.13973.

Al-Fatih, Sholahuddin, Muchammad Ali Safaat, and Muhammad Dahlan.

“Reformulasi Parliamentary Threshold Yang Berkeadilan Dalam Pemilu Legislatif Di Indonesia.” Jurnal Hukum, 2014, 1–20.

http://hukum.studentjournal.ub.ac.id/index.php/hukum/article/viewFile/

1018/1007.

Ananda, Suadamara. “Hukum Dan Moralitas.” Pro Justisia 24, no. 3 (2006):

301–8.

https://journal.unpar.ac.id/index.php/projustitia/article/download/1163/

1130.

Bachmid, Fahri. “Eksistensi Kedaulatan Rakyat Dan Implementasi Parliamentary Threshold Dalam Sistem Pemilihan Umum Di Indonesia.” SIGn Jurnal Hukum 2, no. 2 (2020): 87–103.

https://doi.org/10.37276/sjh.v2i2.83.

Bingham, Lord. “The Rule of Law.” The Cambridge Law Journal 66, no. 1 (2007): 67–85. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197307000037.

Chalmers, A.F. What Is This Thing Called Science? 3rd ed. St. Lucia:

University of Queensland Press, 1982.

https://ebookppsunp.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/alan_chalmers_what _is_this_thing_called_sciencebookfi-org.pdf.

(9)

9

Erlyn Indarti. “Diskresi Dan Paradigma.” Semarang: Universitas Diponegoro, 2010.

Esfandiari, Fitria, and Sholahuddin Al-Fatih. “Initiating A Permanent Electoral Body to Resolve Dignified Election Disputes: Assessing The Effectiveness of Gakkumdu.” Yustisia Jurnal Hukum 9, no. 3 (2020):

333. https://doi.org/10.20961/yustisia.v9i3.44437.

Fauzani, Muhammad Addi, and Fandi Nu Rohman. “Urgensi Rekonstruksi Mahkamah Konstitusi Dalam Memberikan Pertimbangan Kebijakan Hukum Terbuka (Open Legal Policy).” Justitia Et Pax: Jurnal Hukum

35, no. 5 (2019): 127–52.

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.24002/jep.v35i2.2501.

Fendabi, Vanu. “Penerapan Ambang Batas Presidensil (Presidential Threshold) Sebagai Kebijakan Hukum Terbuka Dalam Pemilihan Umum Di Indonesia (Analisis Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor.53/PUUXV/ 2017).” UIN Syarif Hidayatullah, 2019.

Fuady, Munir. Teori-Teori Besar Dalam Hukum: Grand Theory. 3rd ed.

Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media Group, 2014.

Hadi, Syofyan. “Kekuatan Mengikat Hukum Dalam Perspektif Mazhab Hukum Alam Dan Mazhab Positivisme Hukum.” Legality : Jurnal

Ilmiah Hukum 25, no. 1 (2018): 86.

https://doi.org/10.22219/jihl.v25i1.5992.

Hidayat, A. “Orientasi Pemikiran Hukum Berkarakter Keindonesiaan Dalam Perspektif Teori Hukum.” Jurnal Pembaharuan Hukum 2, no. 2 (2015): 162–72. https://doi.org/10.26532/jph.v2i2.1426.

Irwansyah. Penelitian Hukum: Pilihan Metode & Praktik Penulisan Artikel.

Edited by Ahsan Yunus. Yogyakarta: Mirra Buana Media, 2020.

Kholis, Nur. “Parliamentary Threshold And Political Rights Limitation.”

Journal of Law and Legal Reform 1, no. 3 (2020): 445–56.

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.15294/jllr.v1i3.36702.

L. Fuller, Lon. The Morality of Law. Virginia: Yale Law School, 1963.

Lijphart, Arend. Patterns of Democracy, Government Forms & Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. 2nd ed. Yale: Yale University Press, 2012.

https://e-

edu.nbu.bg/pluginfile.php/830138/mod_resource/content/1/Lijphart%2 C A. Patterns of Democracy - Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries %282012%29.pdf.

Marzuki, Peter Mahmud. Pengantar Ilmu Hukum. Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media Group, 2009.

McCoubrey, Hilaire, and Nigel D White. Textbook on Jurisprudence.

London: Blackstone Press Limited, 1996.

Mellaz, August. “Praktek Penerapan Keberlakuan 3,5 Persen Ambang Batas Parlemen Secara Nasional Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 2012 Tentang Pemilu.” Jakarta, 2012.

Peter Mahmud Marzuki. Penelitian Hukum: Edisi Revisi. 13th ed. Jakarta:

(10)

10

Kencana, 2017.

Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University press, 1999. https://www.cita.or.id/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/John-Rawls- A-Theory-of-Justice-Belknap-Press-1999.pdf.

Setiawan, Agus. “Penalaran Hukum Yang Mampu Mewujudkan Tujuan Hukum Secara Proporsional.” Jurnal Hukum Mimbar Justitia 3, no. 2 (2017): 204. https://doi.org/10.35194/jhmj.v3i2.257.

Subiharta. “Moralitas Hukum Dalam Hukum Praksis Sebagai Suatu Keutamaan (Legal Morality in Practical Law as a Virtue).” Jurnal Hukum Dan Peradilan 4, no. 3 (2015): 385–98.

https://doi.org/10.25216/jhp.4.3.2015.385-398.

Sugiri, Bambang. “Lapisan-Lapisan Studi Tentang Hukum.” 2020.

———. “Lapisan Ilmu Hukum.” 2020.

Sulistiyono, Adi. “Menggapai Mutiara Keadilan: Membangun Pengadilan Yang Independen Dengan Paradigma Moral.” Jurnal Ilmu Hukum 8, no. 2 (2005): 152–84.

Wardiono, Kelik, and Khudzaifah Dimyati. “Basis Epistemologis Paradigma Rasional Dalam Ilmu Hukum: Sebuah Deskripsi Tentang Asumsi- Asumsi Dasar Teori Hukum Murni-Hans Kelsen.” Jurnal Dinamika

Hukum 14, no. 3 (2014): 369–83.

https://doi.org/10.20884/1.jdh.2014.14.3.304.

Wibowo, Mardian. “Menakar Konstitusionalitas Sebuah Kebijakan Hukum Terbuka Dalam Pengujian Undang-Undang.” Jurnal Konstitusi 12, no.

2 (2016): 196. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1221.

Wibowo, Sugeng. “Integrasi Epistimologi Hukum Transendental Sebagai Paradigma Hukum Indonesia.” Jurnal Hukum Legal Standing 1, no. 1 (2017): 61–82. https://doi.org/10.24269/ls.v1i1.570.

Wignjosoebroto, Soetandyo. “Memperbincangkan ‘Hukum’ Dari Perspektif Filsafat: Paradigma Hukum Dan Pergeserannya Dalam Sejarah.”

Jurnal Digest Epistema 1, no. 1 (2011): 7–12.

https://epistema.or.id/wp-

content/uploads/2015/07/digest_epistema_vol1.pdf.