Judicial Review and Substantive Justice: Reframing the Constitutional Court’s Role in Protecting Constitutional Rights in Indonesia

Abstrakt

Judicial review is a principal mechanism for maintaining constitutional supremacy and protecting individual rights against excessive legislative power. In Indonesia, however, the effectiveness of constitutional adjudication cannot be measured solely by the number of statutes invalidated by the Constitutional Court. This study examines how substantive justice can provide a more coherent standard for the Court when reviewing legislation that affects constitutionally protected interests. The research employs normative legal research through statutory, conceptual, case, and comparative approaches. Four Constitutional Court decisions concerning political equality, children's civil status, indigenous peoples' customary forests, and meaningful participation in lawmaking are examined to identify patterns of rights protection and remedial reasoning. The study finds that the Court has progressively adopted rights-sensitive interpretation but has not consistently applied an analytical framework connecting constitutional injury, justification of rights limitations, judicial remedies, and implementation. This article proposes a Substantive Justice Review Framework consisting of rights identification, constitutional justification, remedial proportionality, and institutional follow-up. The framework strengthens protection without transforming substantive justice into unrestricted judicial discretion. Its application can improve consistency, transparency, and accountability while maintaining an appropriate constitutional relationship between judicial review and democratic lawmaking.