When Final is Not Fair: Court Justice and the Doctrine of Finality in Constitutional Court Decisions

Abstract

Decisions of the Indonesian Constitutional Court are constitutionally defined as final and binding. While this doctrine aims to ensure legal certainty, it also raises concerns regarding court justice, particularly when decisions generate persistent controversy. This paper examines how the principle of finality interacts with notions of fairness and accountability in constitutional adjudication. Using normative constitutional analysis and selected Constitutional Court cases, the study explores situations in which final decisions have been criticized for limited reasoning, procedural irregularities, or significant societal impact. The analysis suggests that absolute finality may constrain opportunities for correction and deliberation, especially in cases involving fundamental rights. By examining finality as a normative choice rather than a neutral rule, the paper highlights its implications for court justice. It invites reconsideration of whether constitutional justice requires mechanisms for institutional self-correction, even within a system that prioritizes legal certainty.