<![CDATA[This study analyzes the tension between legality and moral legitimacy within the Constitutional Court of Indonesia through the lens of political philosophy. While the Court serves as the guardian of the constitution, recent rulings specifically Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023 regarding presidential candidate age limits have sparked significant public controversy. This debate suggests that formal legal validity does not inherently guarantee moral acceptance. Utilizing a qualitative, normative-conceptual approach, the research evaluates these developments using the frameworks of Max Weber’s rational-legal authority, John Rawls’s justice as fairness, and Jürgen Habermas’s communicative legitimacy. The analysis reveals that when judicial decisions are perceived as instruments of political power rather than impartial legal reasoning, a legitimacy crisis ensues. The study concludes that in a democratic state, the rule of law must be anchored in political ethics and substantive justice to maintain public trust. To bridge the gap between law and morality, the paper recommends strengthening institutional integrity, enhancing procedural transparency, and fostering public discourse rooted in political philosophy.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
