Substantive Justice in the MK Decision

Oct 13, 2025 by pinkandtrash.com 146 views

Introduction

The Constitutional Court (MK) is a state institution that plays a crucial role in upholding the law and justice in Indonesia. As a new institution, the Constitutional Court has made significant contributions to the development of law and democracy in the country. However, the Constitutional Court's authority to make decisions that are regulating (positive legislature) is a topic of debate. In this article, we will analyze the decision of the Constitutional Court Number 20/PUU-XVII/2019 and explore how substantive justice is the basis for the Constitutional Court's regulatory decisions.

The Constitutional Court's Authority and Limitations

The Constitutional Court was officially formed in 2003 through Law Number 24 of 2003 and amended by Law Number 8 of 2010 concerning the Constitutional Court. Although the law does not give permission for the Constitutional Court to make decisions that are regulating (positive legislature), in practice the Constitutional Court often violates this limit. The Constitutional Court prefers to make a decision that is regulating on the pretext of realizing substantive justice.

The Constitutional Court's authority to make decisions is based on the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. The Constitution mandates the Constitutional Court as the perpetrators of judicial power in charge of enforcing the law and justice. The Constitutional Court has the authority to prosecute at the first and last levels, where the decision is final in testing the law of the Basic Law.

Substantive Justice in the MK Decision

Analysis of the decision of the Constitutional Court Number 20/PUU-XVII/2019 shows how substantive justice is the basis for the Constitutional Court to give a regulatory decision. In its consideration, the Constitutional Court puts forward social values and morality, as well as the demands of conscience, rather than relying on normative considerations. This approach reflects the efforts of the Constitutional Court to create decisions that are relevant to the social and cultural context of society.

The importance of substantive justice in the Constitutional Court's decision shows that this institution not only applies rigid laws, but also seeks to answer the needs and expectations of the community. By prioritizing morality in the consideration of its decision, the Constitutional Court makes law as an instrument that is not only legal, but also reflects justice and humanity.

The Role of Substantive Justice in the Constitutional Court's Decision

Substantive justice plays a crucial role in the Constitutional Court's decision-making process. By considering social values and morality, the Constitutional Court gives space for votes and public interests. In the long run, this approach can strengthen the legitimacy of law and public trust in the judicial institution.

The Constitutional Court's approach to substantive justice is in line with the principles of democracy that prioritize community participation in the legal process. When the Constitutional Court considers social values, this institution gives space for the community to participate in the decision-making process. This approach can lead to more inclusive and representative decisions that reflect the needs and expectations of the community.

Conclusion

In the context of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 20/PUU-XVII/2019, Substantive Justice is an important foundation used by the Constitutional Court in making regulatory decisions. By paying attention to the values of morality and the needs of the community, the Constitutional Court plays an active role in maintaining the law not only as a tool to uphold the rules, but also as a means to achieve true justice. This confirms that in every legal decision, especially those related to the constitution, there must be an effort to align between legal norms and human values that live in society.

Recommendations

Based on the analysis of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 20/PUU-XVII/2019, the following recommendations can be made:

The Constitutional Court should continue to prioritize substantive justice in its decision-making process.
The Constitutional Court should consider social values and morality in its decisions to ensure that they reflect the needs and expectations of the community.
The Constitutional Court should give space for votes and public interests in its decision-making process to strengthen the legitimacy of law and public trust in the judicial institution.

By following these recommendations, the Constitutional Court can continue to play an active role in maintaining the law and upholding justice in Indonesia.

Q: What is substantive justice?

A: Substantive justice refers to the consideration of social values, morality, and the demands of conscience in the decision-making process of the Constitutional Court. It is an approach that prioritizes the needs and expectations of the community and seeks to create decisions that are relevant to the social and cultural context of society.

Q: How does the Constitutional Court use substantive justice in its decisions?

A: The Constitutional Court uses substantive justice in its decisions by considering social values and morality, rather than relying solely on normative considerations. This approach reflects the efforts of the Constitutional Court to create decisions that are relevant to the social and cultural context of society.

Q: What is the role of substantive justice in the Constitutional Court's decision-making process?

A: Substantive justice plays a crucial role in the Constitutional Court's decision-making process. By considering social values and morality, the Constitutional Court gives space for votes and public interests. In the long run, this approach can strengthen the legitimacy of law and public trust in the judicial institution.

Q: How does the Constitutional Court's approach to substantive justice align with the principles of democracy?

A: The Constitutional Court's approach to substantive justice aligns with the principles of democracy that prioritize community participation in the legal process. When the Constitutional Court considers social values, this institution gives space for the community to participate in the decision-making process. This approach can lead to more inclusive and representative decisions that reflect the needs and expectations of the community.

Q: What are the benefits of the Constitutional Court's approach to substantive justice?

A: The benefits of the Constitutional Court's approach to substantive justice include:

Strengthening the legitimacy of law and public trust in the judicial institution
Creating decisions that are relevant to the social and cultural context of society
Giving space for votes and public interests in the decision-making process
Aligning with the principles of democracy that prioritize community participation in the legal process

Q: What are the challenges of the Constitutional Court's approach to substantive justice?

A: The challenges of the Constitutional Court's approach to substantive justice include:

Balancing the need for substantive justice with the need for legal certainty and predictability
Ensuring that the consideration of social values and morality does not lead to arbitrary or biased decisions
Managing the potential for conflicting interests and values in the decision-making process

Q: How can the Constitutional Court improve its approach to substantive justice?

A: The Constitutional Court can improve its approach to substantive justice by:

Continuing to prioritize substantive justice in its decision-making process
Considering social values and morality in its decisions to ensure that they reflect the needs and expectations of the community
Giving space for votes and public interests in its decision-making process to strengthen the legitimacy of law and public trust in the judicial institution

By following these recommendations, the Constitutional Court can continue to play an active role in maintaining the law and upholding justice in Indonesia.