Dissenting Opinion of the Constitutional Court Justice in Regards to the Court Decision Number 90/PUU-XXI/2023

Abstract

This research explores the constitutional dynamics surrounding the judicial review of Law Number 7 of 2017 concerning General Elections and the dissenting opinions in Constitutional Court Decision Number 90/PUU-XXI/2023. The petition challenged the constitutionality of presidential candidacy requirements, arguing that certain provisions limited democratic participation. The Constitutional Court partially granted the petition by allowing regional heads under 40 to run, prompting four justices to issue dissenting opinions. They contended that the Court exceeded its mandate by acting as a positive legislator, thereby risking violations of legal certainty and the separation of powers. Using a normative legal method, this study examines constitutional texts, statutory law, court rulings, and academic literature to analyze both the judicial reasoning behind the majority decision and the legal logic of the dissenting opinions. The findings suggest that while constitutional interpretation must adapt to democratic demands, it must remain within the framework of the Constitution. Dissenting opinions, though not binding, serve as a vital check on judicial activism and reinforce the legitimacy of constitutional adjudication in Indonesia’s legal system.