<![CDATA[This article examines the practices of judicial restraint and judicial activism in the decisions of the Indonesian Constitutional Court (MK) for the 2024–2025 period, by integrating the academic discourse published in the MKRI Constitutional Journal (2025), institutional statements by Minister of Law and Human Rights Yusril Ihza Mahendra emphasizing judicial restraint as a form of judicial maturity, and the historical precedent set by Mahfud MD in the KPK wiretapping case as a landmark example of judicial activism in Indonesia. The study was conducted by comparatively analyzing theories of judicial activism and restraint, mapping the spectrum between the two approaches, and applying this analytical framework to the Constitutional Court’s most significant decisions during the 2024–2025 period. This article argues that the activism–restraint dichotomy is a continuum, not a categorical one, and that the Indonesian Constitutional Court, in the dynamics of its rulings, moves between these two poles contextually, depending on the issues at hand, the composition of the panel, and the surrounding political pressures.]]>
Copyrights © 2024
