Benefits of Judicial Restraint

Judicial restraint allows democratically elected legislative and executive bodies to carry out their duties without undue interference from the courts. For example, in the case of the UU Cipta Kerja, Constitutional Court (MK) chose to give the government and the DPR the opportunity to improve the law-making procedure instead of completely canceling it. Avoiding overly broad or creative interpretations, the court helps create legal stability. The Constitutional Court's decision affirms the importance of the principle of legality

The Risk of Judicial Restraint

Judicial restraint can result in the neglect of constitutional rights. A significant example is the Constitutional Court's decision regarding the Electronic Information and Transactions Law (UU ITE). Although many parties criticize certain articles in the UU ITE as potentially curbing freedom of expression, the Constitutional Court tends to refrain from repealing these provisions, raising concerns that civil liberties are not fully protected. In addition, judicial restraint can potentially lead to oppression. In situations where the legislative or executive bodies fail to protect the rights of minorities or vulnerable groups, judicial restraint can exacerbate oppression. For example, the Constitutional Court's decision not to repeal the Ormas Law despite concerns that this law could be used to restrict freedom of association and assembly.