JUDICIAL ACTIVISM OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT IN SHAPING NATIONAL LEGAL POLICY
Keywords:
judicial activism, Constitutional Court, legal policy, positive legislator, constitutional democracyAbstract
The development of Indonesian Constitutional Court decisions reflects a shift from the traditional conception of the court as a negative legislator toward an institution that, under certain circumstances, formulates, corrects, suspends, or directs legal norms. This shift raises fundamental questions concerning the legitimacy of judicial activism and the limits of the Court's involvement in shaping national legal policy. This study examines patterns of judicial activism in Constitutional Court decisions, evaluates their influence on national legal policy, and formulates legitimacy constraints to prevent judicial activism from turning into juristocracy or abusive judicial review. It employs normative legal research using statutory, conceptual, case, and comparative approaches. The primary legal materials include the 1945 Constitution, the Constitutional Court Law, and selected decisions, particularly Decisions Number 102/PUU-VII/2009, 46/PUU-VIII/2010, 14/PUU-XI/2013, 91/PUU-XVIII/2020, 90/PUU-XXI/2023, 116/PUU-XXI/2023, and 60/PUU-XXII/2024. The study finds that judicial activism may be justified when it addresses constitutional deadlock, protects constitutional rights, restores democratic competition, and prevents a legal vacuum. Its legitimacy, however, declines when a ruling lacks a strong constitutional anchor, alters rules close to decisive political stages, or is affected by conflicts of interest. This article proposes a five-layer legitimacy test comprising constitutional foundation, remedial necessity, proportionality, temporal prudence, and the integrity and implementability of judicial remedies.
Downloads
References
Bickel, A. M. (1962). The least dangerous branch: The Supreme Court at the bar of politics. Yale University Press.
Buana, M. S. (2020). Legal-political paradigm of Indonesian Constitutional Court: Defending a principled instrumentalist court. Constitutional Review, 6(1), 36–66. https://doi.org/10.31078/consrev612
Buana, M. S. (2024). Weak-form review and judicial independence: A comparative perspective. Constitutional Review, 10(2), 340–366. https://doi.org/10.31078/consrev1023
Efendi, M. A. F., Muhtadi, M., & Saleh, A. (2023). Positive legislature decisions by the Constitutional Court. Jurnal Konstitusi, 20(4), 622–639. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk2044
Eka, K. (2026). Ambivalensi penerapan Purcell Principle dalam pengujian konstitusionalitas aturan pemilu di Mahkamah Konstitusi. Jurnal Konstitusi, 23(1), 78–96. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk2314
Faiz, P. M. (2016). Dimensi judicial activism dalam putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Jurnal Konstitusi, 13(2), 406–430. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1328
Hakiki, Y. R., & Taufiqurrahman. (2023). Gagasan penataan legislasi nasional berbasis ratio decidendi dan obiter dictum putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Jurnal Konstitusi, 20(1), 78–99. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk2015
Hendrianto, S. (2018). Law and politics of constitutional courts: Indonesia and the search for judicial heroes. Routledge.
Hirschl, R. (2004). Towards juristocracy: The origins and consequences of the new constitutionalism. Harvard University Press.
Indra, M., Saragih, G. M., & Muhtar, M. H. (2023). Kekuatan putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam pengujian undang-undang terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 di Indonesia. Jurnal Konstitusi, 20(2), 279–299. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk2026
Kmiec, K. D. (2004). The origin and current meanings of “judicial activism.” California Law Review, 92(5), 1441–1477. https://doi.org/10.2307/3481421
Kurnia, T. S. (2025). Kritik terhadap Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 90/PUU-XXI/2023 menggunakan pendekatan hak Dworkin. Jurnal Konstitusi, 22(1), 157–177. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk2217
Landau, D., & Dixon, R. (2020). Abusive judicial review: Courts against democracy. UC Davis Law Review, 53(3), 1313–1387.
Latupulhayat, A. (2017). Mendudukkan kembali judicial activism dan judicial restraint dalam kerangka demokrasi. Padjadjaran Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 4(3), 1–6.
Marzuki, P. M. (2021). Penelitian hukum (Edisi revisi). Kencana.
Mochtar, Z. A. (2025). Guarding democracy: Judicial activism in the Indonesian Constitutional Court decisions in regional head electoral disputes. Constitutional Review, 11(1), 36–62. https://doi.org/10.31078/consrev1112
Rahman, F., & Wicaksono, D. A. (2016). Eksistensi dan karakteristik putusan bersyarat Mahkamah Konstitusi. Jurnal Konstitusi, 13(2), 348–378. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1326
Roux, T. (2018). Indonesia’s judicial review regime in comparative perspective. Constitutional Review, 4(2), 188–221. https://doi.org/10.31078/consrev422
Saragih, G. M., Nasution, M., & Sihombing, E. N. A. M. (2025). Judicial review oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi: Judicial activism vs. judicial restraint dalam perspektif kebebasan kehakiman. Jurnal Konstitusi, 22(1), 39–65. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk2213
Setya Hadi, H., Rauf, R., Agus Salim, & Kevin Maulana Firdaus. (2026). Smart Seismic Intelligence Machine Learning for Spatial Clustering and Earthquake Magnitude Prediction in Indonesia. JOURNAL ZETROEM, 8(1), 65–72. https://doi.org/10.36526/ztr.v8i1.7615
Setya Hadi, H. (2025). Penerapan IoT Pada Smart Farming.
Stone Sweet, A. (2000). Governing with judges: Constitutional politics in Europe. Oxford University Press.
Sundariwati, N. L. D. (2024). Judicial activism: Di antara melindungi supremasi konstitusional atau transisi menuju juristocracy. Jurnal Konstitusi, 21(3), 432–447. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk2135
Tushnet, M. (2008). Weak courts, strong rights: Judicial review and social welfare rights in comparative constitutional law. Princeton University Press.
Waldron, J. (2006). The core of the case against judicial review. The Yale Law Journal, 115(6), 1346–1406. https://doi.org/10.2307/20455656
Wicaksono, D. A., & Ruhpinesthi, G. E. (2025). Inisiasi penerapan Purcell Principle oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam pengujian undang-undang terkait pemilihan umum. Jurnal Konstitusi, 22(1), 109–136. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk221
Legal Materials
Constitution and Legislation
Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945. (1945).
Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 24 Tahun 2003 tentang Mahkamah Konstitusi, sebagaimana telah beberapa kali diubah, terakhir dengan Undang-Undang Nomor 7 Tahun 2020. (2003).
Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 10 Tahun 2016 tentang Perubahan Kedua atas Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2015 tentang Pemilihan Gubernur, Bupati, dan Walikota. (2016).
Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 7 Tahun 2017 tentang Pemilihan Umum, sebagaimana diubah dengan Undang-Undang Nomor 7 Tahun 2023. (2017).
Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 13 Tahun 2022 tentang Perubahan Kedua atas Undang-Undang Nomor 12 Tahun 2011 tentang Pembentukan Peraturan Perundang-undangan. (2022).
Constitutional Court Decisions
Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia. (2009). Putusan Nomor 102/PUU-VII/2009.
Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia. (2010). Putusan Nomor 46/PUU-VIII/2010.
Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia. (2013). Putusan Nomor 14/PUU-XI/2013.
Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia. (2020). Putusan Nomor 91/PUU-XVIII/2020.
Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia. (2023a). Putusan Nomor 90/PUU-XXI/2023.
Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia. (2023b). Putusan Nomor 116/PUU-XXI/2023.
Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia. (2024a). Putusan Nomor 60/PUU-XXII/2024.
Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia. (2024b). Putusan Nomor 70/PUU-XXII/2024.
Majelis Kehormatan Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia. (2023). Putusan Nomor 2/MKMK/L/11/2023.
