Construction of Justice, Certainty, and Legal Use in the Decision of the Supreme Court Number 46 P/HUM/2018.

Abstract.The decision of the Supreme Court Number 46 P/HUM/2018 has triggered the division of the legal paradigm in Indonesia. The philosophical discourse between justice, certainty, and the legal use in the reality of Indonesian law reflects the strong grip of legal positivism that resides in the Supreme Court's decision and causes a waning sense of justice and public hope to obtain a track record of candidates who are proper and with integrity. This study aims to explain the philosophical dialectic between justice, certainty, and legal use in PMA No. 46 of 2018 while expressing a representation of justice, construction of legal certainty and legal use that is incarnated according to the judge's consideration in the decision. The approach through justice theory John Stuart Mill and John Rawls will be used to slice the conception of justice, certainty, and legal use that resides in the decision of the Supreme Court Number 46 P/HUM /2018. This research is a normative-philosophical legal research. The results showed that the construction of justice imprinted in the verdict tended to project the concept of justice as equality (justice as fairness) from John Rawls, this can be seen from the consideration of judges contained in decisions emphasizing individual freedom (political rights, elected and elected) as a form of efforts to strengthen libertarian rights or natural rights that cannot be negated by the freedom of others. The aspects of legal benefit and certainty reflect the grip of the positivistic paradigm in law. This is reflected in two lines of consideration, firstly there is no consideration of the common interest (the greatest benefit) in the decision which is a test stone to see the implications of the prohibition norm for former convicted corruption for the future of parliament and the regeneration of people's representatives. Whereas the aspect of legal certainty in the decision only touches the legal realm as lex and negates the ontological basis of the law as an ius which is full of consideration of morality and justice ideas without trying to reveal what is behind the text (meta-teleological aspects) PKPU No. 20 of 2018. Thus, three legal values (certainty, legal use, and justice) should have an equally important position within the framework of the state legal system. When all three are in conflict, the central role of the judge's duty to equally apply the three legal objectives.Keywords: Justice, certainty, legal use, Law, Supreme Court Decision.