<![CDATA[This study aims to analyze the limits of judicial activism exercised by the Constitutional Court in Decision Number 135/PUU-XXII/2024 concerning the design of the simultaneous implementation of general elections and regional head elections. The decision has generated considerable debate because the Constitutional Court constructed a new constitutional framework regarding the relationship between national elections and regional head elections. This research employs a normative legal research method using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. The findings demonstrate that Constitutional Court Decision Number 135/PUU-XXII/2024 reflects the practice of judicial activism through the application of systematic and teleological interpretation to address regulatory ambiguity concerning the simultaneity of elections. Although the Constitutional Court provides guidance for the future design of electoral administration, the decision remains within the scope of the Court's authority as a negative legislator because it does not establish operational legal norms, which fall within the competence of the legislature. The limits of judicial activism in this decision are reflected in the existence of a clear constitutional basis, respect for the doctrine of open legal policy, and the absence of any assumption of the legislative function vested in the DPR and the President. Accordingly, Decision Number 135/PUU-XXII/2024 demonstrates that judicial activism may serve as an instrument for constitutional protection, provided that it continues to uphold the principles of separation of powers, checks and balances, and legal certainty within Indonesia's constitutional system.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
