<![CDATA[The Constitutional Court, through Decision No. 135/PUU-XXII/2024, introduced a new electoral system by separating national elections from regional elections, with the stated aim of improving the quality of elections and reducing voter fatigue. However, this decision has sparked serious constitutional debate. The purpose of this study is to critically analyze the interpretive approach adopted by the justices of the Constitutional Court and to assess its conformity with Article 22E and Article 24C of the 1945 Constitution. This study employs a normative legal research method, using jurisprudential and juridical approaches, supported by primary, secondary, and tertiary legal sources. This study found that the Constitutional Court adopted a purpose-oriented and dynamic approach to constitutional interpretation, rather than a strict textual interpretation of Article 22E of the 1945 Constitution. This interpretive approach effectively transformed the Court’s role from that of a “negative legislator” to that of a norm-setting institution through the redesign of Indonesia’s electoral system. The findings also indicate that the decision reflects judicial activism that exceeds constitutional boundaries in the review of laws, thereby raising concerns regarding the abuse of constitutional authority and the principle of separation of powers. This study also found that efforts to improve the quality of elections should focus on institutional reform and electoral governance, rather than on constitutional amendments through judicial interpretation. Finally, this study can make an academic contribution by developing parameters to assess whether a Constitutional Court decision still constitutes constitutional interpretation or has evolved into constitutional norm-making.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
