ANALISIS PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI NOMOR 77/PUU-XII/2014 MENGENAI PEMBUKTIAN TINDAK PIDANA ASAL DALAM CONCURSUS TINDAK PIDANA PENCUCIAN UANG

The consideration of judges assembly on constitutional court is the important thing to determine quality of judges by their decision. In the dissenting opinion judges Alexander Mawarta about proof of predicate offerance was considered in the handling money laundering case on the proof number 10.Pid- Sus-TPK//2014/PN.JKT.PST and those decision was considered criged to defendant rights as guarantee in the Constitution 1945. However, those plea rejected with the decision of court judge that has differential about interpretation of Article 2 Paragraph (2), Article 3, Article 4, Article 5 Paragraph (1) and Article 69 Constitution 8 Year 2010. This research is analysting of decision of constitutional court number 77/PUU-XII/2014 about proof of predicate ofference about concursus money laundering crime that reviewed from materiil aspect and law reasoning. This kind of this research is library research. The characteristic of this research is descriptive-analystic. The approach in this research is using the juridical-normative approach. The data of this research is struggled by analystic and using the deductive-qualitative. Theresults of this research to the decision of constitutional court number 77/PUU-XII/2014 is conclused some of thing: first, reviewed from the materiil aspect, judges assembly is no fulfill materiil aspect because two of judges assembly has different way in applying and interpreting of Article 2 Paragraph (2), Article 3, Article 4, Article 5 Paragraph (1) about the phrase “he expected” who presuming that these phrase is core of delik and should be proofed, if did‟not proven, so did‟t has further of criminal crime and Article 69 who presuming that some should be proofed with indictment money laundering so its could be proven on of their predicate ofference. Secondly, reviewed from legal reasoning aspect is conclusing that argumentation that was buit by judge assembly give legal considering that not balance. Two of judges assembly are not using method that is used by seven judges on their argumentation and reffering just to the context of the constitution and no reffering of substance from the context of Article 69 Constitution 8 Year 2010. Beside that, both of judges were most saw the justice that applicant hope. Therefore, both of judges were applying princip of legal utility as satisfiying value or benefit for applicant without consider of substance from article that tested. Keyword: Dissennting Opinion, Judicial Review, Judgment, Predicate Ofference,Concursus, Money Laundering