An Analysis of the Constitutional Court Decision No. 05/PHPU.WAKO-XXIII/2025 from the Perspective of Substantive Justice

Abstract

In upholding the principle of constitutional supremacy, the Constitutional Court must not be constrained by rigid procedural formalities that undermine the pursuit of substantive justice. At the same time, parties seeking to file a dispute over the results of a regional head election are required to meet the formal legal standing criteria, as stipulated in Article 158 paragraph (2) of Law No. 10 of 2016 and Constitutional Court Regulation No. 3 of 2024. The petitioner's compliance with these standing requirements plays a decisive role in the Court’s admissibility assessment. One of the Court’s possible responses is to declare a petition niet ontvankelijke verklaard, inadmissible, due to procedural defects, particularly the absence of legal standing (ius standi). In the case under review, the petitioner was the election monitoring organization Visi Nusantara, accredited by the Provincial General Election Commission (KPU) of South Kalimantan but not registered with the KPU of Banjarbaru City. This raised fundamental questions regarding its standing to file the petition. However, in its ruling, the Constitutional Court partially granted the petition by setting aside the standing requirement. The Court argued that a constitutional violation had occurred, specifically of Article 18 paragraph (4) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, thus justifying the relaxation of formal requirements. The decision underscores the Court’s recognition of citizens’ constitutional rights, particularly the right to vote and the right to be elected, as expressions of popular sovereignty. This research adopts a normative juridical method. Primary legal sources include Constitutional Court decisions, the 1945 Constitution, Law No. 10 of 2016, and Constitutional Court Regulation No. 3 of 2024. Secondary sources consist of legal commentaries, academic textbooks, and peer-reviewed legal journals.