Legal Literacy - Judicial restraint, a doctrine that advocates for courts to limit their intervention in public policy, has become a topic of debate in many countries, including Indonesia. An important question that arises is: should this doctrine be formally regulated by law, or should it be allowed to flow as part of judicial practice that develops naturally?

Before that, it is necessary to understand what judicial restraint is. In short, Judicial restraint is a doctrine in the legal system that advocates that courts, especially high courts such as the Supreme Court, should not intervene too often or too far in public policy or decisions made by the legislative and executive bodies, unless the decisions clearly violate the constitution. This principle emphasizes the importance of respecting the roles and authorities of other branches of government and only acting when there is clarity of violations of constitutional rights.

Some characteristics of judicial restraint are:

  1. Deference to Legislation: Courts tend to give respect or deference to policies made by the legislative body, considering that the legislative body is closer to the people and better understands the needs and desires of the community.
  2. Interpretation Restriction: Courts with judicial restraint usually avoid overly broad or creative interpretations of the constitution. They tend to adhere to the original or literal meaning of legal or constitutional texts.
  3. Stare Decisis Principle: Judicial restraint supports the principle of stare decisis, which is to respect and follow precedents or previous decisions from similar cases. This aims to maintain consistency and stability in the law.
  4. Reluctance to Repeal Laws: Courts that apply judicial restraint tend to be reluctant to repeal laws unless the laws clearly violate the constitution.

Amidst the dynamics of politics and law in Indonesia, the concept of judicial restraint—a doctrine that advocates for courts to limit their intervention in public policy—raises complex debates. Judicial restraint is expected to maintain the balance of power between branches of government. However, on the other hand, it also has the potential to ignore justice, especially in cases where the constitutional rights of citizens are at stake.