Abstract
The practice of judicial activism, though not formally defined within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court (MK), is implicitly recognized as an integral element of independent judicial power. The importance of this independence is underscored as a fundamental necessity for the preservation of law and justice. This research utilized a normative juridical methodology, incorporating conceptual, comparative, and case-based analysis. The study findings reveal that judicial activism, as practiced within the Constitutional Court, is underpinned by independent judicial authority. Moreover, this practice aligns with the tenets of progressive legal doctrines, which not only acknowledge the significance of codified legal provisions but also endorse legal innovations for the pursuit of justice. The practice of judicial activism within the Constitutional Court is indispensable for reinforcing the principle of checks and balances. The subjective and abstract nature of judicial activism, however, necessitates objective validation through the principle of virtue jurisprudence.
Publisher
UIN Prof. K.H. Saifuddin Zuhri
Reference63 articles.
1. Abra, Emy Hajar, and Rofi Wahanisa. “The Constitutional Court Ultra Petita as a Protection Form of Economic Rights in Pancasila Justice.” Journal of Indonesian Legal Studies 5, no. 1 (May 4, 2020): 187–224. https://doi.org/10.15294/jils.v5i1.35965.
2. Adryamarthanino, Verelladevanka. “Reformasi Indonesia 1998: Latar Belakang, Tujuan, Kronologi, Dampak.” Kompas, April 20, 2021. https://www.kompas.com/stori/read/2021/04/20/144131779/reformasi-indonesia-1998-latar-belakang-tujuan-kronologi-dampak?page=all.
3. Agustine, Oly Viana, Susi Dwi Harijanti, Indra Perwira, and Widati Wulandari. “Constitutional Review of Criminal Norms: Does Indonesia Need Judicial Activism?” The International Journal of Human Rights 27, no. 4 (April 21, 2023): 772–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2023.2185608.
4. Aldiansyah. “Perubahan Non-Formal Konstitusi Di Indonesia Pasca-Reformasi Berdasarkan Pemikiran Fajrul Falaakh.” AL WASATH Jurnal Ilmu Hukum 2, no. 2 (2021): 93–102. https://doi.org/10.47776/alwasath.v2i2.
5. Allan, James. “The Three ‘RS’ of Recent Australian Judicial Activism: Roach, Rowe and (NO)’riginalism.” Melbourne University Law Review 36, no. 2 (2012): 743–82. https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:293472.