Constitutional Debate: Hard Case in the Bailout Century Bank Policy

Hard case or better known as the debate between Hart and Dworkin is the most important philosophical law debate. The core of the debate lies in the different legal principles between the two jurists. Hart, as a pure positivism follower, has a doctrine which separates between law and morals, whereas Dworkin, although also often known as a positivist, still recognizes the moral influence of the law. This paper will discuss the debate between the two legal scholars as it relates to the case of the bailout policy of Century Bank. The method used in this paper is the comparison of the two masterpieces, i.e., scientific papers of both the jurists, namely, the concept of law and taking rights seriously. The expected result of this paper is an understanding of how the two jurists built their theory and how both approaches are used to find solutions to hard cases. Scholars use the case of the bailout policy of the Century Bank to prove both the theories of Hart and Dworkin. This case is appropriate as it describes what is a hard case through the bailout policy of Century Bank seen from its multidimensional nature, the intersection between the civil law system and common law, and how judges make the legal interpretation.