The Vocabulary of Right Under the Indonesian Constitution: A Hohfeldian Analysis

Adis Nur Hayati, Dewi Analis Indriyani, Nurangga Firmanditya, Harison Citrawan

Abstract


This article demonstrates how the Indonesian Constitutional Court interprets the term ‘right’ when deciding issue-level questions involving constitutional doctrine. In doing so, we employ the Hohfeldian scheme that configures right into four different meanings of claim right, privilege, power, and immunity. By looking at the molecular configuration of rights in the context of freedom of religion, natural resource control, educational policies, and fair trial, this we contend that the right under the constitution is interpreted by the Court in a dynamic-yet-configured fashion. In this sense, ‘dynamic’ implies that the Court’s interpretation does not adhere to a fixed or consistent vocabulary, while ‘configured’ suggests that the vocabulary of right is fundamentally configured by both (1) non-relational liberty and (2) power that provides intervention, limitations, or even change over the nature of liberty into liability (i.e., duty to refrain from acting in a certain way). It is manifest that right is hardly expounded by the Court when the term is juxtaposed with any relevant governmental duties and powers. This demonstrates a judicial fabrication of a flexible legal concept used by the judicial authority to justify certain normative objectives.

Keywords


Constitution; Hohfeld; Interpretation; Legal Concept; Right

Full Text:

PDF

References


AlAfghani, Mohamad Mova. “Strengths and Limitations of The Indonesian

Constitutional Court’s ‘6 Basic Principles’ in Resolving Water Conflicts.”

Constitutional Review 9, no. 1 (2023): 179–220, http://dx.doi.org/10.31078/

consrev916.

Alexy, Robert. “Discourse Theory and Fundamental Rights.” In Arguing

Fundamental Rights, edited by Agustín José Menéndez and Erik Oddvar

Eriksen, 15–30. Dordrecht: Springer, 2006.

Andreopoulos, George, and Zehra F Kabasakal Arat. “On the Uses and Misuses of

Human Rights: A Critical Approach to Advocacy.” In The Uses and Misuses

of Human Rights, 1–27. New York: Springer, 2014.

Asshiddiqie, Jimly. Konstitusi dan Konstitusionalisme Indonesia [Indonesian

Constitution and Constitutionalism]. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2021.

Bix, Brian. “HLA Hart and the Hermeneutic Turn in Legal Theory.” Southern

Methodist University Law Review 52 (1999): 167, https://ssrn.com/

abstract=163810.

Bourchier, David. Illiberal Democracy in Indonesia: The Ideology of the Family

State. London & New York: Routledge, 2014.

Brown, Vivienne. “Rights, Liberties and Duties: Reformulating Hohfeld’s Scheme

of Legal Relations?” Current Legal Problems 58, no. 1 (2005): 343–67, https://

doi.org/10.1093/clp/58.1.343.

Butt, Simon. The Constitutional Court and Democracy in Indonesia. Leiden:

Brill, 2015.

Constitutional Court, Decision no. 001-021-022/PUU-I/2003 (2003).

Constitutional Court, Decision no. 058-059-060-063/PUU-II/2004 (2005).

Constitutional Court, Decision no. 006/PUU-III/2005 (2005).

Constitutional Court, Decision no. 008/PUU-III/2005 (2005).

Constitutional Court, Decision no. 11/PUU-V/2007 (2007).

Constitutional Court, Decision no. 11-14-21-126-136/PUU/VII/2009 (2010).

Constitutional Court, Decision no. 140/PUU-VII/2009 (2010).

Constitutional Court, Decision no. 65/PUU-VIII/2010 (2010).

Constitutional Court, Decision no. 36/PUU-X/2012 (2012).

Constitutional Court, Decision no. 35/PUU-X/2012 (2013).

Constitutional Court, Decision no. 34/PUU-XI/2013 (2013).

Constitutional Court, Decision no. 85/PUU-XI/2013 (2014).

Constitutional Court, Decision no. 80/PUU-XVII/2019 (2019).

Constitutional Court, Decision no. 11-14-21-126-136/PUU/VII/2019 (2019).

Curran, Eleanor. “Hobbes’s Theory of Rights – A Modern Interest Theory.” The

Journal of Ethics 6 (2002): 63–86, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015875902334.

D’Almeida, Luís Duarte. “Fundamental Legal Concepts: The Hohfeldian

Framework.” Philosophy Compass 11, no. 10 (2016): 554–69, https://doi.

org/10.1111/phc3.12342.

Duffel, Siegfried Van. “The Nature of Rights Debate Rests on a Mistake.” Pacific

Philosophical Quarterly 93 (2012): 104–23, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-

2011.01418.x.

Dworkin, Ronald. Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press, 1978.

El-Muhtaj, Majda. Hak Asasi Manusia dalam Konstitusi Indonesia [Human Rights

in the Indonesian Constitution]. Jakarta: Kencana, 2015.

Epstein, Lee, and Keren Weinshall. The Strategic Analysis of Judicial Behavior:

A Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021.

Fontaneau, Francois A. “The Right to Religious Freedom & the Hohfeldian

Analysis of Rights.” Solidarity: The Journal of Catholic Social Thought and

Secular Ethics 3, no. 1 (2013): 92–99, https://researchonline.nd.edu.au/

solidarity/vol3/iss1/7.

Hendrianto, Stefanus. “Constitutionalized But Not Constitute: The Case of Right

to Social Security in Indonesia.” Constitutional Review 6, no. 2 (December

: 241, http://dx.doi.org/10.31078/consrev623.

Hohfeld, Wesley Newcomb. Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial

Reasoning: And Other Legal Essays. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1923.

Hohfeld, Wesley Newcomb. “Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied

in Judicial Reasoning.” The Yale Law Journal 23, no. 1 (1913): 16–59, https://

doi.org/10.2307/785533.

Holzhacker, Ronald. “Gay Rights Are Human Rights’: The Framing of New

Interpretations of International Human Rights Norms”. In The Uses and

Misuses of Human Rights: A Critical Approach to Advocacy, edited by George

Andreopoulos and Zehra F. Kabasakal Arat, 29–64. New York: Palgrave

Macmillan, 2014.

Law No. 20 of 2003 on National Education System (2003).

Lazarev, Nikolai. “Hohfeld’s Analysis of Rights: An Essential Approach to a

Conceptual and Practical Understanding of the Nature of Rights.” Murdoch

University Electronic Journal of Law 12, no. 1 (2005), https://dx.doi.

org/10.25236/AJHSS.2023.060308.

Markovich, R´eka. “Understanding Hohfeld and Formalizing Legal Rights: The

Hohfeldian Conceptions and Their Conditional Consequences.” Studia Logica

(2020): 131, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-019-09870-5.

O’Rourke, Allen Thomas. “Refuge from a Jurisprudence of Doubt: Hohfeldian

Analysis of Constitutional Law.” South Carolina Law Review 61, no. 1 (2009):

–70, https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/sclr/vol61/iss1/5.

Omara, Andy. “Enforcing Nonjusticiable Rights in Indonesia.” Constitutional

Review 6, no. 2 (December 2020): 311, http://dx.doi.org/10.31078/consrev625.

Partain, Roy Andrew. “Creating Rights, Terminating Rights, Overcoming Legal

Conflicts.” Constitutional Review 8, no. 2 (December 2022): 215, http://dx.doi.

org/10.31078/consrev822.

Penner, J.E. Hohfeldian Liberties, Property Rights: A Re-Examination. Online edn.

Oxford: Oxford Academic, 2020.

Rachman, Irfan Nur. “Politik Hukum Pengelolaan Sumber Daya Alam Menurut

Pasal 33 UUD 1945 [Legal Politics of Natural Resources Management

According to Article 33 of the 1945 Constitution,” Constitutional Journal],”

Jurnal Konstitusi 13, no. 1 (2016): 191–212, https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1319.

Safa’at, Muchamad Ali. “The Roles of the Indonesian Constitutional Court in

Determining State-Religion Relations.” Constitutional Review 8, no. 1 (May

: 113-50, http://dx.doi.org/10.31078/consrev815.

Smith, Carel. “The Vicissitudes of the Hermeneutic Paradigm in the Study of

Law: Tradition, Forms of Life and Metaphor.” Erasmus Law Review 4 (2011):

, https://ssrn.com/abstract=1924860.

Sreenivasan, Gopal. “Duties and Their Direction.” Ethics 120, no. 3 (April 2010):

–494, https://doi.org/10.1086/652303.

Sunstein, Cass R. Legal Reasoning and Political Conflict. Oxford University Press,

Vasandani, Malika Rajan, Dwi Putra Nugraha, and Susi Susantijo. “Affirmative

Action Study on the Political Rights of Women in the Indonesian

Constitution.” Consttitutional Review 8, no. 1 (May 2022): 62, http://dx.doi.

org/10.31078/consrev813.

Westen, Peter. “Poor Wesley Hohfeld.” San Diego Law Review 55 (2018): 449–68,

https://digital.sandiego.edu/sdlr/vol55/iss2/11.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.31078/consrev1018

Article Metrics

Abstract view : 117 times
PDF view : 25 times

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2024 Constitutional Review