Legal Literacy - The Constitutional Court once had its heyday, and the Constitutional Court itself was considered a child of the reforms that once struggled to restore the dignity of democracy that had almost sunk. From this, various perspectives emerged regarding the Constitutional Court, to the point that the Constitutional Court itself was nicknamed “The Guardian of Constitution”.

Quoting a statement from Prof. Mahfud regarding the journey of the Indonesian Constitutional Court, which once gave a progressive color to the development of Constitutional law in Indonesia, and the Constitutional Court itself was once considered a very credible law enforcement institution.

In Harvard Handbook in 2012 written by Tomse, he assessed that the Indonesian Constitutional Court is one of the 10 most effective Constitutional Courts in the world. Not only that, many scientific journals, articles or other media in which they recognize the very good performance of the Indonesian Constitutional Court at that time. One example is in Rifli Harun's Disprestation, which explains the appreciation for the Indonesian Constitutional Court in its courage to make Landmark Decisions.

Basically, the Constitutional Court was once one of the respected and highly respected judicial institutions. This is because the Constitutional Court itself once worked with full respect and was never afraid of intimidation from any party. Not only that, one of the keys to the many appreciations for the Constitutional Court itself is the courage of the Constitutional Court in making Landmark Decisions. In addition, the Constitutional Court also gave birth to many monumental decisions, which decisions bravely penetrated into the recesses of Substantive justice as the soul of the law. This is not just a matter of formal procedural justice.

If viewed from a juridical perspective, in essence, the Constitutional Court's decision is final and cannot be contested. However, it does not rule out the possibility that the Constitutional Court's decision itself was born in an imperfect state or could be said to be irrelevant.

An example of a Constitutional Court Decision that is considered irrelevant is the Constitutional Court Decision No. 32/PUU-XVII/2020 regarding Presidential Threshold the Regional Head Election, which requires regional head candidate pairs, namely political parties or a combination of political parties that have 20% of the DPRD seats. This decision then reaped a lot of criticism because it was considered to complicate independent candidacy and this decision could strengthen the oligarchy of the Party.

In addition, this decision is considered irrelevant because the regional head election system in Indonesia needs and will always have renewal, which renewal can encourage broader political party participation and can also improve the quality of democracy to be stronger in the future. So the decision regarding Presindetial Threshold itself needs to be reviewed in order to achieve this goal.