BALANCING JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AND RESTRAINT IN INDONESIA’S CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

Abstract

This study examines the trends in judicial activism and restraint in the Indonesian Constitutional
Court's judicial review rulings, as well as the consequences for constitutional democracy. The study
looks at 15 significant rulings from 2010 to 2024 using a qualitative doctrinal approach and case-based
jurisprudential analysis. The findings demonstrate that while the Constitutional Court exercises judicial
activism to uphold citizens' constitutional rights and reinforce the idea of checks and balances, it also
exercises judicial restraint when it comes to matters of public policy. These results highlight the
necessity of bolstering the processes for carrying out rulings and striking a dynamic balance between
judicial activism and caution. The report suggests updating the Constitutional Court Law,
standardizing the reasoning behind decisions, raising public awareness, and enhancing cooperation
between the House of Representatives, the Constitutional Court, and civil society.