CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION: THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT'S PARADIGM SHIFT IN THE JUDICIAL REVIEW OF PRESIDENTIAL AND VICE-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDACY THRESHOLD NORMS IN INDONESIA
Keywords:
Threshold, Open Legal Policy, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Interpretation, Constitutional Engineering.Abstract
The presidential threshold provision under Article 222 of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections has generated prolonged debate concerning the inclusivity of electoral competition and the integrity of the presidential system. For over a decade, the Constitutional Court consistently upheld this norm as an open legal policy of the legislature. However, a fundamental shift occurred through Decision No. 62/PUU-XXII/2024, which declared the provision unconstitutional. This study analyzes the structure of the Constitutional Court's legal arguments in its prior jurisprudence and examines the legal rationale underlying the paradigm shift in this recent decision. This is a normative legal study employing statutory, case, and conceptual approaches. The findings indicate that the earlier jurisprudence relied on judicial restraint to maintain government stability and promote the simplification of the political party system. In contrast, Decision No. 62/PUU-XXII/2024 applies the doctrine of responsive judicial review, emphasizing substantive justice, the restoration of popular sovereignty, equality among political parties participating in the current general election, and the determination of the framers' original intent. The invalidation of this norm creates a technical legal vacuum, requiring the legislature to restructure the regulatory framework through new constitutional engineering for the 2029 General Election. This restructuring must combine the guarantee of inclusive rights—free from percentage thresholds—with a mandatory nomination mechanism to preserve stable and democratic electoral management.
Downloads
References
Abustan. (2023). Ketatanegaraan Indonesia Perspektif Perbandingan Hukum Tata Negara. Yogyakarta: Edu Publisher.
Ali, H., Ben Hammou, S., & Powell, J. M. (2022). Between Coups and Election: Constitutional Engineering and Military Entrenchment in Sudan. Africa Spectrum, 57(3), 327–339. https://doi.org/10.1177/00020397221136581.
Arifin, F., Maarif, I. Q., Astawa, I. G. P., Abdullah, M. K., & Bahri, R. A. (2025). Open Legal Policy Criteria in the Constitutional Court Decision: An Evaluation and Recommendation. Padjadjaran Jurnal Ilmu Hukum (Journal of Law), 12(2), Artikel 4. https://doi.org/10.22304/2442-9325.1335.
Asaad, N. (2025). ICJ Discretionary Powers: Judicial Activism v. Restraint in the Advisory Opinion on Kosovo. Annals of the Faculty of Law in Belgrade, 4, 711–741. https://doi.org/10.51204/Anali_PFBU_25402A.
Asshiddiqie, J. (2005). Hukum Tata Negara dan Pilar-Pilar Demokrasi: Serpihan Pemikiran Hukum, Media dan HAM. Jakarta: Konstitusi Press.
Asshiddiqie, J. (2006). Pengantar Ilmu Hukum Tata Negara. Jakarta: Konstitusi Press.
Baihaki, M. R., Fathudin, & Kharlie, A. T. (2020). Problematika Kebijakan Hukum Terbuka (Open Legal Policy) Masa Jabatan Hakim Konstitusi. Jurnal Konstitusi, 17(3), 653–765. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1739.
Benítez-R., V. F., & Acosta-López, J. (2026). La ilusión del diálogo: límites conceptuales y prácticos del responsive judicial review en Colombia. Vniversitas Jurídica, 75, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.vj75.idlc.
Budiardjo, M. (2008). Dasar-Dasar Ilmu Politik. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama.
Carle, S. D. (2024). The Failed Idea of Judicial Restraint: A Brief Intellectual History. Law & Social Inquiry, 49(1), 569–592. https://doi.org/10.1017/lsi.2023.66.
Crouch, M. (Ed.). (2022). Constitutional Democracy in Indonesia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dixon, R. (2023). Responsive Judicial Review in Central & Eastern Europe. Review of Central and East European Law, 48, 375–402. https://doi.org/10.1163/15730352-bja10093.
Eastland-Underwood, T. (2023). Original Intent as a Cultural Schema in Constitutional Interpretation. Journal of Constitutional Law, 25(2), 112–145.
Editorial. (2006). Power, People and Constitutional Engineering. European Constitutional Law Review, 2(3), 325–327. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019606003257.
Fathorrahman, F., Rambe, M. J., & Fahmi, A. A. (2024). The Ethical Approach in Assessing the Legitimacy of Constitutional Court Decisions: Urgency and Orientation. Indonesian Journal of Administrative Law and Local Government, 1(02).
Fiala, V., & Tungul, L. (2025). Engineering Power: The Classification of Presidential Constitutional Manipulation in Sub-Saharan Africa (1990–2020). Africa Spectrum, 60(3), 472–490. https://doi.org/10.1177/00020397251372624.
Isra, S. (2010). Pergeseran Fungsi Legislasi: Menguatnya Model Legislasi Semu dalam Sistem Presidensial Indonesia. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers.
Isra, S. (2016). Sistem Pemerintahan Indonesia: Pergulatan Amandemen dan Sengketa Lembaga Negara. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers.
Kosař, D., & Ouředníčková, S. (2023). Responsive Judicial Review “Light” in Central and Eastern Europe – A New Sheriff in Town? Review of Central and East European Law, 48, 445–472. https://doi.org/10.1163/15730352-bja10091.
Lailam, T. (2019). Implikasi Presidential Threshold Dalam Pemilu Nasional Serentak Terhadap Sistem Presidensiil Di Indonesia. Dalam N. Huda dkk., Mewujudkan Daulat Rakyat Melalui Pemilu Yang Berkualitas (hlm. 94). Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
Mahfud MD, M. (2010). Politik Hukum di Indonesia. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers.
McGinnis, J. O., & Rappaport, M. (2024). An Originalist Approach to Prospective Overruling. Notre Dame Law Review, 99(2), 425–484. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4367359.
Novita, dkk. (2025). Putusan MK terkait presidential threshold menuju demokrasi yang lebih inklusif atau tantangan baru dalam pemilu. Aktivisme: Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan, Politik dan Sosial Indonesia, 2(3), 110–125.
Powell, H. J. (1985). The Original Understanding of Original Intent. Harvard Law Review, 98(5), 885–948.
Prasetya, K. E. (2026). Ambivalence in the Application of the Purcell Principle in the Constitutional Review of Electoral Regulations at the Constitutional Court. Jurnal Konstitusi, 23(1), 79–96. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk2313.
Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 51-52-59/PUU-VI/2008 terkait Pengujian Materiil Undang-Undang Nomor 42 Tahun 2008 tentang Pemilihan Umum Presiden dan Wakil Presiden.
Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 62/PUU-XXII/2024 perihal Pengujian Materiil Undang-Undang Nomor 7 Tahun 2017 tentang Pemilihan Umum terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945.
Rambe, M. J., Siregar, M. A. ., & Sembiring, D. . (2024). Judicial Order in the Examination of the Constitutionality and Legality of Health Financing Norms. Asian Journal of Healthcare Analytics, 3(2), 177–196. https://doi.org/10.55927/ajha.v3i2.12583
Ramdani, A., Harijanti, S. D., & Sungkar, S. (2025). Pelacakan Original Intent dalam Tafsir Konstitusi oleh Hakim Mahkamah Konstitusi Indonesia. Jurnal Hukum Tata Negara, 14(1), 45–68.
Saragih, G. M., Nasution, M., & Sihombing, E. N. (2025). Judicial Review oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi: Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint dalam Perspektif Kebebasan Kehakiman. Jurnal Konstitusi, 22(1), 40–65. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk2213.
Sartori, G. (1997). Comparative Constitutional Engineering: An Inquiry into Structures, Incentives, and Outcomes (2nd ed.). New York: New York University Press.
Schmidt, C. P. (2024). Disrupting Election Day: Reconsidering the Purcell Principle as a Federalism Doctrine. Virginia Law Review, 110(6), 1493–1547.
Tulkens, F. (2022). Judicial Activism v Judicial Restraint: Practical Experience of This (False) Dilemma at the European Court of Human Rights. The European Convention on Human Rights Law Review. Published online 30 Aug 2022.
Undang-Undang Nomor 7 Tahun 2017 tentang Pemilihan Umum.
Vela Ávalos, M. A. (2022). Justicia dialógica en una ingeniería constitucional resistente al constitucionalismo dialógico: el caso de El Salvador. Anuario Iberoamericano de Justicia Constitucional, 26(1), 181–211. https://doi.org/10.18042/cepc/aijc.26.07.
Wibowo, M. (2015). Menakar Konstitusionalitas sebuah Kebijakan Hukum Terbuka dalam Pengujian Undang-Undang. Jurnal Konstitusi, 12(2), 197–216.
Wibowo, M. (2018). Kebijakan Hukum Terbuka dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers.
Wibowo, M., Nurjaya, I. N., Safaat, M. A., & Hamidi, J. (2017). The Criticism on the Meaning of “Open Legal Policy” in Verdicts of Judicial Review at the Constitutional Court. Constitutional Review, 3(2), 262–286.
