Why? First, in its ruling, the court referred to its previous decision, which acknowledged the legal standing of the petitioners as voters, allowing them to file a judicial review against a barrier to the presidential election. In short, the court expanded the opportunity for not only political parties but also concerned citizens to challenge provisions that impact their constitutional rights.

Second, the decision reflects a shift in the justices’ approach from that of their predecessors. In this context, there are at least 33 prior rulings on the presidential threshold, which the court consistently upheld.

However, in its decision announced on Jan. 2, the court departed from this precedent by aligning with the explicit text of Article 6A paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, which states that presidential candidate pairs are proposed by political parties before the election takes place. In other words, once political parties are declared election participants, they hold the constitutional right to field presidential candidates.

Substantively, most Constitutional Court justices demonstrated a shift in stance by reaffirming the objective meaning of the words in the constitutional text, indicating that they employed an originalist approach in their decision. This approach reflects an effort to interpret the Constitution based on the original meaning of the text at the time of its ratification. According to Antonin Scalia (2020), the originalist approach seeks to prevent justices, whether conservative or progressive, from interpreting the law based on personal preferences or ideological inclinations.

Finally, although the bench opts for the originalist approach, its exercise of authority reveals elements of proactive legal interpretation and policymaking, effectively reflecting judicial activism. In their monumental decision, the justices made a break with their traditional role of merely interpreting the law and instead adopted innovative or progressive approaches to achieve an outcome deemed fair, even though they might diverge from strict precedents or the literal legal text (Barber & Fleming, 2007).

This is evident in the justices' reasoning, which highlights three key points. First, after five presidential elections, the court considered it sufficient to continue recognizing the presidential threshold as an open legal policy. Second, it found that the dominant role of political parties in proposing candidates had limited voters' constitutional rights. Finally, the justices concluded that now was the appropriate time for the court to change the game.

The ruling presents three key messages aimed at strengthening the country’s constitutional design.

First, political parties participating in the election may form coalitions, provided such alliances do not lead to the dominance of any single party or coalition, which could restrict the number of contenders, hence voters’ choices.

Second, lawmakers are urged to create regulations to prevent an excessive number of presidential and vice-presidential candidate pairs. Finally, political parties that fail to propose presidential and vice presidential candidate pairs in the election will be subject to sanctions, including disqualification from participating in the next election cycle. 

The first key message is that the drafters of the Election Law must consider the conditions and significance of the middle class in Indonesia. According to research by Kompas Daily Research and Development (2024), the middle class has consistently played a pivotal role in driving political change in Indonesia.

Moreover, this group is predominantly composed of people of productive age and is concentrated in urban areas, contributing to their heightened political awareness. Additionally, the middle class acts as a stabilizing force in political conditions and serves as a crucial driver of economic growth, accounting for half of Indonesia's total household consumption.

On the other hand, to underscore the significance of the middle class in driving political change following the removal of the threshold, A. Prasetyantoko (2024) highlights that the middle class plays a crucial role as a stabilizing force for democracy. A decline in the middle class, particularly amid signs of democratic backsliding, underscores the pressing need for institutional reforms as a key factor in achieving successful transformation. Therefore, any revision of the Election Law must consider the crucial role of the middle class.

The second key message emphasizes the importance of strengthening political party institutions to create a high-quality democratic arena. In this context, the removal of the threshold should enable political parties to nominate qualified, capable and integrity-driven cadres as presidential and vice presidential candidates, while also fostering solid political coalitions.

The final key message is that the end of the threshold marks a shift toward originalism. According to Thomas W. Merrill (2005), originalism, when paired with a weak theory of precedent, has the potential to foster judicial activism. In this context, the court's previous decisions that upheld the threshold set weak precedents that could not address the rapidly evolving conditions and people’s aspirations.

This approach enables judges to pursue an original understanding, creating interpretive flexibility that allows originalist reasoning to justify overturning precedents or introducing significant legal changes. Moreover, by relying on an originalist approach, the decision-making process opens the door for diverse outcomes, paving the way for innovative and activist rulings.

In conclusion, the annulment of the presidential threshold represents a significant shift in the electoral landscape, and reshapes the rules of the game, fostering more dynamic democratic competition. However, it is essential to prioritize political education for citizens, equipping them with analytical and critical tools to evaluate the track records, policy proposals and programs of presidential and vice presidential candidates.

***

D. Nicky Fahrizal is a legal researcher in the department of politics and social change at the Jakarta-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Winda Safitri is a research assistant at the Center for Citizenship and Human Rights Studies (CCHRS) at the Veteran National Development University Jakarta (UPNVJ).