<![CDATA[The birth of the post-reform Constitutional Court (MK) is often narrowed in meaning by the public to "Election Calculators" or guardians of constitutional procedures. This view ignores the historical mandate of its establishment, namely as an antithesis to the failure to fulfill social justice in the New Order era. This paper proposes a claim (thesis) that the most important role of the Constitutional Court is not as a passive guardian of the constitution, but as an active interpreter of social justice. This research uses normative legal research methods with a qualitative-philosophical approach. The argument is constructed using the structure of a "three-act drama": (1) exposing the status quo of the New Order legacy and a narrow view of the role of the Constitutional Court; (2) to conduct a confrontation by analyzing four landmark decisions of the Constitutional Court (case studies of the Water Resources Law, the Job Creation Law, Streams of Trust, and PHPU 2019) as evidence of their role in interpreting substantive and procedural justice; (3) offer a resolution in the form of an analysis of the threat of politicization to the crucial role. The results of the study show that the Constitutional Court has consistently expanded its role from judicial-procedural to judicial-substantive. Ironically, however, this role as an interpreter of social justice is now threatened by political intervention, an echo of the past that reform seeks to eradicate.]]>
