Judicial Activism and Constitutional Norm Creation in Indonesia’s 2024 Elections

Retno Eko Mardani; Rengga Kusuma Putra; Fifiana Wisnaeni; Aprista Ristyawati; Satriya Nugraha

doi:10.26623/julr.v9i4.14177

Authors

Retno Eko Mardani Universitas Veteran Bangun Nusantara
Rengga Kusuma Putra
Fifiana Wisnaeni
Aprista Ristyawati
Satriya Nugraha

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.26623/julr.v9i4.14177

Keywords:

Constitutionality, Constitutional Court, Creation of Legal Norms, Judicial Activism, Legal System

Abstract

This study aims to examine the exercise of judicial activism by the Indonesian Constitutional Court in decisions concerning the 2024 General Election, particularly its contribution to constitutional norm formation and its implications for electoral legal certainty. Employing doctrinal legal research, this study applies statutory, conceptual, and case approaches to selected Constitutional Court decisions that directly affected electoral regulation and raised questions concerning the scope of judicial authority and norm creation. The findings demonstrate that the Court’s constitutional interpretation extended beyond the conventional function of a negative legislator by modifying electoral thresholds, candidate eligibility requirements, and the institutional timing of elections. The analysis identifies four cumulative indicators through which constitutional interpretation may evolve into judicial law-making: departure from the ordinary textual meaning of legislation, formulation of standards not expressly established by the legislature, immediate normative consequences, and general binding effect (erga omnes). The novelty of this study lies in developing an integrated conceptual framework that uses these four indicators to distinguish legitimate constitutional interpretation from judicial activism and judicial norm creation within Indonesia’s constitutional system. The findings further indicate that judicial activism may strengthen constitutional rights protection and democratic participation when addressing genuine constitutional deficiencies, but excessive intervention may undermine separation of powers, legal certainty, and electoral stability. Accordingly, future constitutional adjudication in electoral matters should be grounded in constitutional text and principles, accompanied by institutional restraint and consideration of the temporal and systemic consequences of judicial intervention.

References

Amin, Fakhry. “Peran Mahkamah Konstitusi Dalam Menjaga Prinsip Konstitusionalisme Di Indonesia : Studi Putusan Judicial Review Tahun 2019 – 2024.” Ranah Research: Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development 7, no. 6 (2025): 4467–75. https://doi.org/10.38035/rrj.v7i6.1856.

As-Suvi, Ahmad Qiram, and Moh Zainullah. “Sociology of Law in The Perspective of Roscoe Pound and Donald Black and Its Relevance in The Indonesian Context.” Peradaban Journal of Law and Society 1, no. 2 (2022): 82–95. https://doi.org/10.59001/pjls.v1i2.39.

Athalia, Anindya Dewi, Amanda Karilla, Aprita Dara Saphira Prameswari, Mahesa Perkasa, and Mochammad Huri. “Pentingnya Memahami Proses Pengujian Undang-Undang Terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar (Judicial Review) Di Mahkamah Konstitusi Guna Meningkatkan Kepekaan Terhadap Peraturan Yang Berlaku Pada Masyarakat Demokrasi.” VSJ| Veteran Society: Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat 4, no. 2 (2023): 244–72. https://doi.org/10.33005/vsj.v4i2.193.

Dodsworth, Harry B. “The Positive and Negative Purcell Principle.” Utah L. Rev. 2022, no. 5 (2022): 1081. https://doi.org/10.26054/0d-9nqp-9t93.

Górnisiewicz, Arkadiusz. “Dispute over the Guardian of the Constitution. Hans Kelsen, Carl Schmitt and the Weimar Case.” Politeja-Pismo Wydziału Studiów Międzynarodowych i Politycznych Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego 18, no. 72 (2021): 193–214. https://doi.org/https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=983005.

Heir, Arjan S. “Originalism’s Stare Decisis Problem: The Place of Precedent in Theories of Interpretation.” Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 52, no. 3 (2024): 263. https://repository.uclawsf.edu/hastings_constitutional_law_quaterly/vol52/iss3/5/.

Kartika, Mimi. “Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Bersifat Final Dan Mengikat.” https://www.mkri.id/, 2024. https://www.mkri.id/berita/putusan-mahkamah-konstitusi-bersifat-final-dan-mengikat-21529.

Khaery, Ihza Fathul, Nurul Qamar, and Andi Tenri Sapada. “Analisis Terhadap Praktik’Judicial Activism’Oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi.” Legal Dialogica 1, no. 1 (2025): 11–26. https://jurnal.fh.umi.ac.id/index.php/legal/article/view/1515.

Khasanah, Dian Ratu Ayu Uswatun, and Anggita Doramia Lumbanraja. “Perkembangan Interpretasi Hukum Oleh Hakim Di Indonesia Dalam Dominasi Tradisi Civil Law System.” Jurnal Ius Constituendum 7, no. 2 (2022): 232–45. https://doi.org/10.26623/jic.v7i2.4799.

Kurdi, Kurdi, Joko Cahyono, and Teuku Ahmad Dadek. “Judicial Overreach in Constitutional Court Decisions: Navigating the Boundary Between Constitutional Interpretation and Judicially Created Legislation.” JIHK 7, no. 2 (2026): 1013–26. https://doi.org/10.46924/jihk.v7i2.366.

Liswana, Nelly, Haeruman Jayadi, and Khairul Umam. “Kewenangan Mahkamah Konstitusi Dalam Melakukan Judicial Activism.” Jurnal Diskresi 4, no. 1 (2025): 102–12. https://doi.org/10.29303/diskresi.v4i1.7426.

Muarif, Abdullah. “Implementasi Prinsip Negara Hukum Dalam Pelaksanaan Pemilihan Umum Di Indonesia.” Maliki Interdisciplinary Journal 2, no. 7 (2024): 100–107. https://urj.uin-malang.ac.id/index.php/mij/article/view/8969.

Noor, Rico Septian. “Menyoal Judicialization of Politics Mahkamah Konstitusi Pasca Putusan Nomor 85/PUU-XX-2022 Dalam Konteks Penegakan Hukum Pemilu Di Indonesia.” Konferensi Nasional Asosiasi Pengajar Hukum Tata Negara Dan Hukum Administrasi Negara 1, no. 1 (2023): 419–52. https://doi.org/10.55292/ksz4fj70.

Nurfadilla, Meilivia, Maya Agustiningsih, and Maulidia Maulidia. “Politik Hukum Dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023: Antara Konstitusionalitas Dan Kepentingan Politik Pemilu 2024.” Causa: Jurnal Hukum Dan Kewarganegaraan 13, no. 10 (2025): 71–80. https://doi.org/10.6679/1qbb0927.

Perbawa, I Ketut Sukawati Lanang Putra. “Legal Policy in the Decision of the Constitutional Court and the Formation of Law.” Journal of Law and Sustainable Development 11, no. 12 (2023): e2179–e2179. https://doi.org/10.55908/sdgs.v11i12.2179.

Purnamasari, Tyara Devy, and Jadmiko Anom Husodo. “Constitutional Court as an Actor That Maintains Check and Balance System Through the Judicial Review Process in Indonesia.” In International Conference on Cultural Policy and Sustainable Development (ICPSD 2024), 628–33. Atlantis Press, 2024. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-38476-315-3_85.

Putra, Antoni. “Sifat Final Dan Mengikat Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Dalam Pengujian Undang-Undang.” Jurnal Yudisial 14, no. 3 (2021): 291–311. https://doi.org/10.29123/jy.v14i3.425.

Ramdani, Muhammad Doni, Hartiwiningsih Hartiwiningsih, and I Gusti Ayu Ketut Rachmi Handayani. “A Utility, Justice, and Security Perspective on the ‘Final and Binding’ Constitutional Court’s Decisions.” In International Conference on Cultural Policy and Sustainable Development (ICPSD 2024), 282–87. Atlantis Press, 2024. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-38476-315-3_39.

Rishan, Idul. “Abusive Judicial Review : Skandal Minimum Usia Dan Disfungsi Mahkamah Konstitusi.” Undang: Jurnal Hukum 7, no. 1 (2024): 119–49. https://doi.org/10.22437/ujh.7.1.119-149.

Rozaq, Muhammad Abdur, Surya Daniel Batara, and Muhamad Ramdan Jaya. “Urgensi Check and Balance Oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi Melalui Judicial Activism Dalam Praktik Demokrasi Di Indonesia.” UNES Law Review 6, no. 3 (2024): 8796–8805. https://doi.org/10.31933/unesrev.v6i3.1780.

Saragih, Geofani Milthree, Mirza Nasution, and Eka N A M Sihombing. “Judicial Review Oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi: Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint Dalam Perspektif Kebebasan Kehakiman: Judicial Review by the Constitutional Court: Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint in the Perspective of Judicial Freedom.” Jurnal Konstitusi 22, no. 1 (2025): 39–65. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk2213.

———. “Makna Filosofis Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Dalam Constitutional Review Dan Urgensi Judicial Activism.” Masalah-Masalah Hukum 53, no. November (2024): 326–35. https://doi.org/10.14710/mmh.53.3.2024.326-335.

Sari, Adena Fitri Puspita, and Purwono Sungkono Raharjo. “Mahkamah Konstitusi Sebagai Negative Legislator Dan Positive Legislator.” Sovereignty 1, no. 4 (2022): 681–91. https://doi.org/10.13057/souvereignty.v1i4.112.

Setiawan, Heru, I Gusti Ayu Ketut Rachmi Handayani, M Guntur Hamzah, and Hilaire Tegnan. “Digitalization of Legal Transformation on Judicial Review in the Constitutional Court.” Journal of Human Rights, Culture and Legal System 4, no. 2 (2024): 263–98. https://doi.org/10.53955/jhcls.v4i2.263.

Solehah, Idamatus. “Relevansi Yurisprudensi Sebagai Instrumen Pembaruan Hukum Di Indonesia.” Yudhistira: Jurnal Yurisprudensi, Hukum Dan Peradilan 2, no. 3 (2024): 50–58. https://doi.org/10.59966/yudhistira.v2i3.1675.

Sulastri, Dewi, and Abu Sanmas. “Mahkamah Konstitusi Sebagai Positive Legislator : Implikasi Putusan Terhadap Prinsip Checks and Balances Di Indonesia ( The Constitutional Court as a Positive Legislator : Implications of Decisions on the Principle of Checks and Balances in Indonesia ).” Jurnal Litigasi 26, no. 90 (2025): 272–315.

———. “Mahkamah Konstitusi Sebagai Positive Legislator: Implikasi Putusan Terhadap Prinsip Checks and Balances Di Indonesia.” Litigasi 26, no. 2 (2025): 272–315. https://doi.org/10.23969/litigasi.v26i2.21999.

Thoriq, Ahmad Reihan, and Irwan Triadi. “Dialektika Judicial Activism Dan Judicial Restraint Dalam Sistem Peradilan Indonesia : Suatu Tinjauan Filsafat Hukum The Dialectic of Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint in the Indonesian Judicial System : A Legal-Philosophical Analysis Perdebatan Mengenai Judicial Activism Dan Judicial Restraint Merupakan Salah Satu Dinamika Paling Fundamental Dalam Filsafat Hukum Modern, Khususnya Ketika Hukum Tidak Hanya Yang Hakim Lakukan Dalam Praktik. Pemikiran Seperti Holmes, Cardozo, Hingga Akhirnya Hukum Harus Merujuk Pada Norma Yang Lebih Tinggi , Dan Hakim Tidak Boleh Menciptakan Norma,” no. 60 (2024).

Yablon, Robert, and Derek Clinger. “Purcell Principles for State Courts.” Wisconsin Law Review 2024, no. 5 (2024): 1637. https://doi.org/10.59015/wlr.WCKM8290.

Zalewska, Monika. Dynamic Approach to Hans Kelsen’s General Theory of Norms. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2024. https://digital.casalini.it/9781509942787.