<![CDATA[The purpose of this study is to analyse the decision of the Constitutional Court in the judicial review of the Job Creation Law (CK Law) and the State Capital Law (IKN Law) and to measure the principle of transparency by the Constitutional Court (MK) in the judicial review of the two laws. This is based on Law Number 12 of 2011 on the Establishment of Legislation. The research method used is normative which positions the law as a system of norms to analyze the law that has been decided by the judge through the court process. The results of the study conclude that firstly, because the CK Law is proven not to apply the principle of openness, due to the lack of public participation and information that is difficult to access by the public. The Constitutional Court decided to partially grant case number 91/PUU-XVIII-2020 by being declared formally disabled and the Job Creation Law conditionally unconstitutional. While in the IKN Law, the Constitutional Court decided to reject the entire application with case number 25/PUU-XX/2022 and stated that the principle of openness was in accordance with the constitution and the IKN Law remained in effect. Second, the Constitutional Court does not yet have a definite measure or parameter regarding the principle of openness in the examination of the Law, because there are two laws which are almost the same in their formation procedure, namely the CK Law and the IKN Law but were decided with different decisions.Key Words: Openness principle; job creation law; IKN law AbstrakTujuan penelitian ini yakni untuk mengetahui putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam judicial review Undang-Undang Cipta Kerja (UU CK) dan Undang-Undang Ibu Kota Negara (UU IKN) serta menganalisis ukuran asas keterbukaan oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK) dalam judicial review kedua undang-undang tersebut berdasarkan Undang-Undang Nomor 12 Tahun 2011 tentang Pembentukan Peraturan Perundang-Undangan. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah normatif yang memposisikan hukum sebagai sistem norma untuk menganalisis hukum yang telah diputuskan oleh hakim melalui proses pengadilan. Hasil penelitian menyimpulkan, pertama, disebabkan UU CK terbukti tidak menerapkan asas keterbukaan, karena kurangnya partisipasi masyarakat dan informasi yang sulit diakses masyarakat. MK memutuskan mengabulkan sebagian dalam nomor perkara 91/PUU-XVIII-2020 dengan dinyatakan cacat secara formil dan UU Cipta Kerja inkonstitusional bersyarat. Sedangkan UU IKN, MK memutuskan menolak seluruhnya permohonan dengan nomor perkara 25/PUU-XX/2022 dan menyatakan bahwa asas keterbukaan sudah sesuai dengan konstitusi dan UU IKN tetap berlaku. Kedua, MK belum memiliki ukuran atau parameter yang pasti tentang asas keterbukaan dalam pengujian Undang-Undang, karena terdapat dua Undang-Undang yang secara prosedur pembentukan hampir sama yakni UU CK dan UU IKN tetapi diputus dengan putusan yang berbeda..Kata-kata Kunci: Asas keterbukaan, UU cipta kerja, UU IKN]]>
