Guarding Democracy: Judicial Activism in the Indonesian Constitutional Court Decisions in Regional Head Electoral Disputes

Abstract

This paper examines the extent of judicial activism exercised by the Court in resolving regional head election disputes from 2017 to 2020 and its implications for democratic electoral processes in Indonesia. Through a normative juridical approach and case study analysis of selected Constitutional Court decisions, this study highlights how judicial activism has been used to safeguard democracy. The findings reveal that the Court, in several instances, has expanded its jurisdiction beyond legal norms to address systemic electoral violations, including structured, systematic, and massive fraud. The Court’s decisions in cases such as Boven Digoel, Yalimo, and Sabu Raijua demonstrate its willingness to intervene in cases involving candidate eligibility, vote-buying, and administrative malpractice, often resulting in re-elections or candidate disqualifications. However, despite its proactive stance, the Court has shown restraint when dealing with pre-election violations such as money politics and civil servant mobilization, thereby raising concerns about the consistency and limitations of its judicial activism. The study underscores the dual nature of judicial activism: while it enhances electoral democracy by addressing unresolved violations, it also risks creating legal uncertainty and overstepping institutional boundaries. The trend observed in the 2017-2020 decisions suggests that the Court’s role in election dispute resolution is evolving, reflecting both the need for judicial intervention in electoral integrity and the constraints imposed by legal frameworks. Ultimately, judicial activism by the Constitutional Court contributes to the protection of electoral democracy in Indonesia, ensuring that regional head elections adhere to democratic principles and are free from fraudulent practices.