In Decision Number 138/PUU-VII/2009, the Constitutional Court considered it necessary to include Government Regulations in Lieu of Laws (Perpu) within the definition of Laws that fall under the Constitutional Court's authority for judicial review. This was done as an interpretation of the Constitutional Article governing this matter. Article 22 the 1945 Constitution, which regulates Perpu, explicitly distinguishes between Perpu and Laws, even though the content of both is essentially the same. The legal reasoning constructed by the Constitutional Court as the basis for the decision a quo includes considering the implications arising from the Perpu.

A Perpu will give rise to new legal norms that have implications for the emergence of new legal statuses, legal relationships, and legal consequences. The interval for the validity of legal norms in a Perpu is from the time the Perpu is ratified until the rejection or acceptance of the Perpu by the DPR in the next session after the Perpu is issued. Thus, the Constitutional Court has the authority to review the substance of a Perpu because its binding force and substance are the same as a Law.

In the legal reasoning of the decision a quo, it is clearly illustrated how the Constitutional Court maneuvers in viewing and interpreting the normative relationship between the Constitutional article governing the Constitutional Court's authority, Article 24C, and the article governing Perpu matters, Article 22. The Constitutional Court engages in interpretative deviation, namely ignoring the principle of judicial restraint. According to Aharon Barak, this principle is a principle that requires judges to interpret a Law by first paying attention to the legal politics of its drafters.[1] This principle, which arises from the notion of constitutionalism, is oriented towards limiting the Constitutional Court so that it does not act as a mini parliament, behaving as if it were an institution authorized to create legal norms.[2]

The decision a quo is among the decisions that can be labeled "courageous" because it overrides the principle of judicial restraint. In addition, the legal reasoning flow of the decision a quo is characterized by teleological interpretation, ignoring the original intent in interpreting Articles 22 and 24C the 1945 Constitution. Teleological interpretation is an interpretation oriented towards the purpose (teleology) of a regulation that is established. The application of this interpretation method still pays attention to the interpretation rules, namely (1) verbal meaning; (2) grammatical construction; (3) the context of the legislation; and (4) the social aspects contained in the Law to be interpreted.[3]