<![CDATA[This study examines the substantive transparency of judicial review decisions on the Constitutional Court’s digital platform within the framework of good constitutional governance. The research addresses a critical gap in existing scholarship and regulatory practice, which predominantly emphasize administrative transparency and procedural digitalization while neglecting the accessibility and comprehensibility of constitutional legal reasoning (ratio decidendi). Using a normative-policy approach, the study combines regulatory analysis of Constitutional Court Regulation No. 8 of 2019 and No. 10 of 2023, doctrinal examination of selected constitutional review decisions, and conceptual analysis grounded in legal informatics and open justice principles. The findings demonstrate that the current digital platform primarily functions as an administrative repository and fails to ensure substantive transparency due to the absence of structured reasoning disclosure, semantic information architecture, standardized explanatory formats, and cognitively accessible legal communication. Consequently, digital transparency remains formally compliant yet substantively limited in promoting constitutional accountability and democratic participation. The novelty of this research lies in the development of an integrative analytical framework connecting jurisprudential theory, legal informatics, and constitutional governance through the dimensions of clarity, structure, consistency, and accessibility as indicators of substantive judicial transparency. This study contributes theoretically by redefining digital judicial platforms as normative instruments of democratic constitutional accountability and practically by proposing governance-oriented standards for ratio decidendi disclosure, semantic tagging, user-centered platform design, and participatory transparency mechanisms in constitutional adjudication.]]>
