<![CDATA[In the case review of decision Number 30-74/PUU-XII/2014 and 22/PUU-XV/2017, the Constitutional Court experienced a shift from judicial restraint to judicial activism. The object of the case being tested was Article 7, paragraph (1) of the Marriage Law relating to the age limit for marriage. Article 7, paragraph 7 (1) of the Marriage Law is an open legal policy. In practice, the Constitutional Court applies the principle of judicial restraint as stated in the decision 30-74/PUU-XII/2014. This is different from decision 22/PUU-XV/2017. This essay formulates the shift in the Constitutional Court's stance from judicial restraint to judicial activism. The change in the Constitutional Court's stance opens up important questions regarding the consistency and limits of its authority in a state of law and living constitution in the Constitutional Court's decisions. This research uses a regulatory approach (statute approach) and a conceptual approach (conceptual approach). The results of this study are the differences in legal considerations in decisions 30-74/PUU-XII/2014 and 22/PUU-XV/2017. These differences arise in legal considerations and verdicts. Second, the shift of the Constitutional Court from judicial restraint to judicial activism is marked by differences in viewing the testing of open legal policies, the form of progressiveness of the Constitutional Court, and judicial activism in enforcing justice in a limited manner. Third, the living constitution theory requires the Constitutional Court to re-interpret the Constitutional Court's powers within the Constitution. This interpretation must be in line with the legal needs of society, particularly in the context of the age limit for marriage.]]>
Copyrights © 2025
