Legal Literacy - Perhaps not too long ago, the barrage of drumbeats of contestation—the political battle in this country—has begun. The announcement of the presidential and vice-presidential candidates has signaled that the league has begun, reaching into the corners of intellectual spaces, and seemingly stopping by at its doorstep. Joyfully dancing through the institution that is always devastated as the 'Guardian of the Constitution,' the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia that we all love. By: Ch Idzan Falaqi Harmer - Chairman of the Student Family of Master of Laws (KMMIH), Faculty of Law, Gadjah Mada University How could it not be? The Constitutional Court's latest decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023 has provided a slightly different gradation of color and a whip for some constitutional observers in this country. It is only natural that Lord Aldi Taher openly stated in his expression that: "Everyone on this earth is confused, they won't be confused when they are in heaven," he said. Therefore, it is fitting that one of the nine constitutional justices, Saldi Isra, also issued a statement that:
I am confused, and truly confused about where to start this dissenting opinion. This is the first time I have experienced such a strange, extraordinary event, and it can be said to be far from the limits of reasonable reasoning. The Court changed its stance and attitude in a flash. Where the change occurred in a matter of days. Thus, the Court changed its stance from the Constitutional Court's decision Numbers 29, 51, 55 of 2023 with a rejection ruling to an acceptance in the decision a quo. (doc. MK hearing).
However, unfortunately, this resulted in a report from the Central Leadership Council of the People's Advocacy for Nusantara (DPP ARUN) to the Honorary Council of the Constitutional Court (MKMK) solely because of a dissenting opinion or difference of opinion. An irony. Similarly, the same expression was uttered by Zainal Arifin Mochtar: "The judge's gavel is actually broken and shattered, and this time it is rather difficult to repair" (doc. MataNajwa). Of course, some recordings or portraits of reality illustrate that things related to 'stakes' are no longer in their place.

How is the Constitutional Court Today?

The Constitutional Court, in a portrait that increasingly appears to be expanding its authority within the corridor of the Constitutional Court's authority as regulated by statutory regulations. Furthermore, regarding Judicial Activism, which this time is too encroaching on the boundaries that have been framed by statutory regulations, as is the ideal hope for the establishment of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. Of course, it doesn't stop there, even though the guarantee of the establishment and authority of the Constitutional Court has been affirmed under the umbrella of law the most fundamental, namely the 1945 Constitution. However, other matters say otherwise. The Constitutional Court is increasingly using its gavel of power to break through the barriers as mandated by the Negative Legislature mandated to the Constitutional Court. However, as it happened, the opposite is true—the Court The Constitutional Court has violated the provisions that are the ideal fence for the establishment of an institution. Then, the question that arises is: "How firm is the stance of the Constitutional Justices and the Foundation of the Constitutional Court as the Guardian of the Constitution today?" Another note that needs to be understood together is that; in the 'rules of the game' of the constitutionalism school, it clearly affirms and provides a fence against the limits of state administration so as not to be arbitrary or authoritarian. Has the Constitutional Court as the Guardian of Justice broken through these boundaries in the a quo decision? Indeed, fundamentally, this is still a discourse and debate regarding 'what actually happened behind this?' which is suspected by some observers that there are indications of political influence penetrating the body of the Constitutional Court. Meanwhile, the Constitutional Court as an institution whose integrity is legitimized must increasingly be able to maintain its consistency as it should, without then having to follow the flow of development and the battle of the political arena. Especially the events that are happening today, changing the stance of the Constitutional Court in a flash.

The Gavel of Hope from the Court is called 'Justice'

In fact, there are already too many theories that explain the wording that is aspired to and longed for by everyone, namely justice. It should be noted that the Constitutional Court, in its role as a container for all incoming and accepted requests, was immediately defeated by a young man who only argued the reason 'because of admiration for a figure who has built his area well'. Has this given a signal and indication that the Constitutional Court will in the future grant every incoming Judicial Review request because of 'admiration for a figure in this country?' Perhaps this is important, the interpretation for those in power of justice is increasingly abstract. It is true if it is said that: "justice is abstract in nature, but injustice is very palpable". To obtain the true meaning of justice, it is often infiltrated by dilemmatic interests, and its benefits are only for some people, not all. So, to reach justice itself, sometimes it must start from an injustice. Therefore, why neutrality ConstitutionalCourt is considered important and avoids interests that try to penetrate the body of the Constitutional Court. It is only natural that as an institution that shelters justice for all, the Constitutional Court pays attention to the logical reasons why it is important to place the thoughts and perspectives of a Judge in the context of the universality of a nation and state, in order to realize the guarantee of Equality Before The Law in this republic. In any case, everyone's hopes in this country are the same. Obtaining the right and guarantee to be treated equally before the law, as is often called Equality Before The Law, with or without 'disturbing and being disturbed' the rights and guarantees of others (1945 Constitution, Article 28J). Some poets argue with an expression: "living in peace". But the dilemmatic problem is: "is living in peace in this republic just a dream or just a utopian hope?". Of course, good hopes and prayers should always be chanted, for good things. So that this republic is always protected in the purpose for which it stands. Wallahu a’lam bishawab.. *This article is the personal opinion of the author and does not represent the views of the Indonesian Legal Literacy editorial team.