<![CDATA[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.]]>
