Penelitian ini memiliki tujuan untuk menjelaskan penerapan judicial activism yang dilakukan oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi dan alasan perlunya Mahkamah Konstitusi menerapkan judicial activism dalam putusan presidential threshold melalui penelitian yuridis normatif dengan menjelaskan asas dan prinsip yang saling berkaitan. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa Mahkamah Konstitusi cukup sering menggunakan judicial activism seperti pada Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 5/PUU-V/2007 dan Nomor 102/PUU-VII/2009. Berdasarkan dua putusan itu setidaknya ada tiga pertimbangan Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam menerapkan judicial activism yang telah terpenuhi dalam kasus presidential threshold yaitu, 1) adanya diskriminasi politik, 2) adanya pelanggaran hak konstitusional, dan 3) terjadi kondisi darurat sosio-politik. Oleh karena itu Mahkamah Konstitusi telah memiliki dasar untuk membatalkan presidential threshold yang telah melanggar moralitas, rasionalitas, dan ketidakadilan yang intolerable. Dengan demikian seharusnya Mahkamah Konstitusi menggunakan judicial activism agar dapat memberikan putusan yang mengedepankan keadilan substantif sehingga bisa menghidupkan nilai kemanfaatan dan keadilan di masyarakat.This study aims to explain the application of judicial activism carried out by the Constitutional Court and the reasons for the need for the Constitutional Court to apply judicial activism in the presidential threshold decision through normative juridical research by explaining interrelated principles. The study results show that the Constitutional Court often uses judicial activism as in the Decisions of the Constitutional Court Number 5/PUU-V/2007 and Number 102/PUU-VII/2009. Based on the two decisions, there are at least three considerations of the Constitutional Court in implementing judicial activism that has been fulfilled in cases of presidential threshold, namely, 1) political discrimination, 2) violations of constitutional rights, and 3) a socio-political emergency occurs. Therefore, the Constitutional Court has a basis for testing the threshold that violates morality, rationality, and intolerable injustice. Thus, the Constitutional Court should use judicial activism to give appreciation for substantial justice to revive the value of expediency and justice in society.

This study intends to explain the consistency of the Constitutional Court (MK) in making new legal norms by using the doctrine of judicial activism and to explain the factors that underlie the consistency of the Constitutional Court in making new legal norms through normative juridical research by explaining the principles, principles, and analysis of interrelated decisions. This study concludes that the Constitutional Court is inconsistent because it only grants and makes new legal norms in the Constitutional Court Decision Number 5/PUU-V/2007. Meanwhile, in the Constitutional Court's Decision Number 53/PUU-XV/2017, the Constitutional Court refused to make a new norm even though the two cases created discrimination and limited public participation in politics. The inconsistency factors include: 1) jurisprudence factors, 2) the application cannot convince the majority of the judges of the Constitutional Court, and 3) the paradigm factor of judges.

Corruption crimes always turn out to be more neat and difficult to reveal, thus demanding changes in the system that capable of eradicating corruption to its roots. And one of the changes is the implementation of a reversed burden of proof system that makes it easier for prosecutors to reveal the criminal elements in a corruption case. Even though it has been included in positive law, in practice this proof is not fully applied and there are still obstacles in its application. This study seeks to answer in what cases this reverse burden of proof is applied and what are the obstacles in its application. This research concludes that the reversal burden of proof system in Indonesia is applied only to criminal acts of gratification whose nominal value is above Rp. 10 million and is used to confiscate the property of the defendant who has not been charged by the prosecutor. Meanwhile, the obstacles to implementing a system of reversal burden of proof are 1) the existence of a judicial mafia, 2) a legal culture that has not yet adapted to the new system, and 3) reverse burden of proof is not clearly regulated in Indonesian law. Abstrak Kejahatan korupsi selalu berubah menjadi lebih rapih dan sulit diungkap sehingga menuntut adanya perubahan sistem yang mampu untuk memberantas korupsi sampai keakarnya. Dan salah satu perubahan itu adalah dengan penerapan sistem beban pembuktian terbalik yang memudahkan jaksa untuk mengungkap unsur pidana dalam sebuah kasus korupsi. Meskipun sudah dicantumkan didalam hukum positif, namun dalam praktiknya pembuktian ini tidak diterapkan secara menyeluruh serta masih ada hambatan dalam penerapannya. Penelitian ini berupaya menjawab dalam kasus apa saja beban pembuktian terbalik ini diterapkan serta apa saja hambatan dalam penerapannya. Penelitian ini menyimpulkan sistem beban pembuktian terbalik di Indonesia dilaksanakan hanya pada tindak pidana gratifikasi yang nominalnya diatas Rp 10 juta serta digunakan untuk perampasan harta terdakwa yang belum didakwakan jaksa. Sedangkan hambatan penerapan sistem beban pembuktian terbalik yaitu 1) adanya mafia peradilan, 2) budaya hukum yang belum beradaptasi dengan sistem baru, dan 3) pembuktian terbalik tidak diatur secara jelas dalam undang-undang.