Mahkamah Agung telah membatalkan Peraturan Dewan Perwakilan Daerah Republik Indonesia Nomor 1 Tahun 2017 tentang Tata Tertib DPD RI dengan Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 20 P/HUM/2017 baik secara hukum maupun secara politis telah mengundang problematik di Indonesia. Mahkamah Agung telah membatalkan Pasal 47 ayat (1) dan (2)  Peraturan DPD RI tentang Tata Tertib DPD RI. Pasal 47 ayat (1) : “Susunan Pimpinan DPD terdiri atas 1 orang Ketua dan 2 (dua) orang Wakil Ketua meliputi Wakil Ketua I dan Wakil Ketua II yang mencerminkan keterwakilan wilayah dan bersifat kolektif kolegial.”, dan ayat (2) : “Pimpinan DPD diresmikan dengan keputusan DPD untuk masa jabatan 2 tahun 6 bulan”. Atas putusan yang dikeluarkan Mahkamah Agung tersebut juga mengakibatkan ketidakpuasan beberapa anggota DPD RI yang pada akhirnya berakibat pada sidang paripurna DPD RI. Menganalisis tentang kewenangan Mahkamah Agung untuk memutus Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 20 P/HUM/2017 yang membatalkan Peraturan DPD RI Nomor 1 Tahun 2017 tentang Tertib DPD RI telah tepat ditinjau dari Pasal 1 angka 2, Pasal 7, dan Pasal 8 Undang-Undang Nomor 12 Tahun 2011 tentang Pembentukan Peraturan Perundnag-undangan juncto Undang-Undang Nomor 17 Tahun 2014 tentang MPR, DPR, DPRD, dan DPD. Serta menganalisis akibat hukum Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 20 P/HUM/2017 yang membatalkan Peraturan DPD RI Nomor 1 Tahun 2017 tentang Tertib DPD RI. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah penelitian normatif. Penulisan skripsi ini penulis menggunakan Pendekatan Perundang-Undangan (Statute Approach), Pendekatan Kasus (Case Approach), Pendekatan Konseptual (Conceptual Approach). Penelitian hukum normatif tidak mengenal adanya data. Sumber- sumber penelitian hukum dalam penelitian ini akan dibedakan menjadi tiga bagian yaitu bahan hukum primer , bahan hukum sekunder dan bahan non hukum. Teknik pengumpulan bahan hukum dengan menggunakan studi kepustakaan dan studi kasus. Teknik analisa bahan hukum yaitu dengan menginventarisasi serta mengelompokkan bahan hukum serta mengidentivikasi fakta hukum untuk menjawab isu hukum dengan penafsiran hukum. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa Langkah Mahkamah Agung dirasa tidak tepat untuk menguji materiil Peraturan DPD RI Nomor 1 Tahun 2017 tetang Tata Tertib DPD RI dengan bahwa pada ketentuan Pasal 8 ayat (1) dan (2) Undang-Undang Nomor 12 Tahun 2011 tentang Pembentukan Peraturan Perundang-undangan belum diperjelas mengenai  aturan seperti Tata Tertib DPD RI yang substansinya hanya mengikat ke dalam dan hanya berlaku di internal badan tersebut dapat digolongkan sebagai peraturan perundang-undangan sesuai aturan yang berlaku sehingga dapat digolongankan dengan mudah jika pasal tersebut mengatur segara jelas.

           Kata Kunci : Problematik Yuridis, Mahkamah Agung, Peraturan Perundang-undangan , Dewan Perwakilan Daerah, Tata Tertib.

The Supreme Court has issued the Regional Representative Council Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia Number 1 of 2017 concerning the Rules of the Republic of Indonesia DPD with Supreme Court Decision Number 20P / HUM / 2017 both national and political law has proposed a problem in Indonesia. The Supreme Court has issued Article 47 paragraph (1) and (2) of the DPD RI Regulation concerning the Rules of the Republic of Indonesia DPD. Article 47 paragraph (1): "The DPD Leadership Composition consists of 1 Chairperson and 2 (two) Deputy Chairpersons including Deputy Chairperson I and Deputy Chairperson II who regulate regional representation and collectively collect collegially.", And paragraph (2): "The DPD leadership is inaugurated with a DPD decision for a term of 2 years 6 months". The decision issued by the Supreme Court was also issued to satisfy the members of the Republic of Indonesia DPD, which ultimately resulted in the plenary session of the Republic of Indonesia DPD. Analyzing the authority of the Supreme Court to decide on the Supreme Court Decision Number 20 P / HUM / 2017 which cancels RI DPD Regulation Number 1 of 2017 concerning the Order of the Republic of Indonesia Republic of Indonesia has been reviewed in accordance with Article 1 number 2, Article 7, and Article 8 of Law Number 12 of 2011 concerning Establishment of Perundanag Regulation in conjunction with Law Number 17 of 2014 concerning the MPR, DPR, DPRD, and DPD. As well as analyzing the legal consequences of the Supreme Court Decision Number 20 / P / HUM / 2017 which cancels RI DPD Regulation Number 1 of 2017 concerning the Order of the Republic of Indonesia DPD. The research method used is normative research. The writing of this paper uses the Legislative Decision, Case Approach, Conceptual Approach (Conceptual Approach). Normative legal research knows no data. The sources of legal research in this study will be divided into three parts, namely primary legal material, secondary legal materials and non-legal materials. Techniques for selecting legal materials using library case studies and case studies. The technique of analyzing legal materials is by inventorying and classifying legal materials and identifying legal facts to answer legal problems with legal interpretation. The results of the study show that the Supreme Court's Step was deemed appropriate to discuss the material of DPD RI Regulation Number 1 of 2017 concerning the DPD-RI Rules of Conduct with notes on the provisions of Article 8 paragraph (1) and (2) Law Number 12 Year 2011 concerning Formation The legislation was amended to clarify regulations such as the Rules of the DPD RI whose substance is only binding inwardly and only applies to internal bodies which can be classified as regulations in accordance with regulations that can be easily classified if there are questions as requested immediately clear.

          Keywords: Problematic Jurisdiction, Supreme Court, Legislation, Regional Representative Council, Rules of Procedure