No abstract

Purpose Legal syncretism seeks to provide a rather different account of how laws interact with one another as the people deal with them. The purpose of this study is to provide a rather different account of how laws interact with one another as the people deal with them in the society. Design/methodology/approach This paper discusses the current concept of legal pluralism as to whether it really holds as the right theory for building a harmonious and trustworthy legal system in a multi-cultural country such as Indonesia. This study involves socio-legal research drawing on empirical data. It discusses the practice of legal pluralism in Indonesia by analyzing the characteristics of her legal system, especially the roles of customs and religion in it. Findings The research, conducted in five Indonesian cities, reveals that the current proposal of legal pluralism is not really helping to solve the difficulties faced by the Indonesian legal system. Therefore, this paper proposes legal syncretism or the theory of unity in diversity (bhineka tunggal ika) as an alternative to help cope with some of the difficulties faced by many legal systems in developing countries, especially Indonesia. Originality/value Although legal pluralism sounds promising, wrong and misleading interpretations have been provided by many of its proponents. Legal pluralism has been touted by many socio-legal scholars as a key concept in the analysis of law. Yet, after almost 20 years of such claims, there has been little progress in the development of the concept. Despite these confident pronouncements and the apparent unanimity that underlie them, however, the concept gives rise to complex unresolved problems. Legal syncretism seeks to provide a rather different account of how laws interact with one another as the people deal with them.

AbstrakPercampuran kewenangan antara Mahkamah Konstitusi dan Mahkamah Agung telah menimbulkan berbagai persoalan. Pada gilirannya, muncullah persinggungan kewenangan dua lembaga tersebut yang dapat berujung pada terjadinya ketidakpastian hukum. Berkaitan dengan kewenangan pengujian peraturan Perundang-undangan misalnya, meski Mahkamah Agung dan Mahkamah Konstitusi sama-sama memiliki wewenang pengujian peraturan Perundang-undangan, namun dengan berbedanya jenis dan hierarki peraturan Perundang-undangan yang diuji, maka penafsiran peraturan Perundang-undangan yang dilakukan dua lembaga tersebut mesti tunduk pada sistem hierarki peraturan Perundang-undangan yang berlaku. Sebab, validitas norma adalah bersumber dari peraturan Perundang-undangan yang lebih tinggi. Selain itu, apapun putusan pengujian Undang-Undang terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar, putusan tersebut bersifat erga omnes, termasuk bagi hakim agung di Mahkamah Agung dan hakim-hakim pada badan peradilan di bawah Mahkamah Agung.

No abstract

No abstract