Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.23
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Pena Justisia: Media Komunikasi dan Kajian Hukum
Sahabuddin, Andi Arfan
Unknown Affiliation
Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice

Published : 1 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 1 Documents
Search

 1 
The “Constitutional Interest” Paradigm vs. the “Constitutional Injury” Requirement in Judicial Review Requests Sahabuddin, Andi Arfan
Pena Justisia: Media Komunikasi dan Kajian Hukum Vol. 24 No. 1 (2025): Pena Justisia
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Pekalongan

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31941/pj.v24i1.7124

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to analyze these different paradigms, examine the consistency of their application in Constitutional Court decisions, and assess their implications for access to constitutional justice in Indonesia. The research method used is normative legal research with a statute and case approach. Data were obtained through a review of relevant laws, legal doctrine, and analysis of Constitutional Court decisions, then analyzed qualitatively to identify the Court's argumentation patterns. The results show that the Constitutional Court tends to use the "constitutional injury" paradigm as the primary standard in assessing an applicant's legal standing. However, in some cases, the Court also considers the "constitutional interest" paradigm when a constitutional issue is deemed to concern the broader public interest. This creates inconsistencies in judicial practice and demonstrates the considerable scope for interpretation for constitutional judges. The distinction between the interest and injury paradigms reflects the tension between the principle of judicial prudence and the need to expand access to constitutional justice. Clarity of standards is needed by the Constitutional Court to avoid legal uncertainty and to ensure that citizens' constitutional rights are consistently protected
Co-Authors