<![CDATA[This article examines the constitutional limits of judicial law-making by the Indonesian Constitutional Court in electoral legislation, with a focus on Decision No. 62/PUU-XXII/2024. This ruling invalidated the presidential candidacy threshold in Article 222 of Law No. 7 of 2017 and introduced five guidelines for the legislature to reform the presidential nomination system. These directives have raised questions about whether they constitute legitimate constitutional interpretation, a constitutional directive, or unauthorized judicial law-making that encroaches on legislative authority. Using a normative legal methodology, this study analyzes relevant statutes, case law, and scholarship on the separation of powers, judicial review, judicial activism, judicial restraint, and the doctrines of positive and negative legislation. The findings show that while judicial law-making can result from constitutional adjudication, its legitimacy depends on constitutional authority, interpretive necessity, legislative discretion, institutional competence, and the strength of the court's legal reasoning. Accordingly, the five guidelines in Decision No. 62/PUU-XXII/2024 should be viewed as constitutional directives, not legislative substitutes, as long as they serve as external parameters that protect the legislature's policy-making authority.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
