A Critical Analysis of the Constitutional Court’s Ruling on Presidential Term Limits

Abstract

The Supreme Court plays a crucial role in upholding legal consistency, yet contradictory rulings from the highest judicial authority can create confusion and erode public confidence in the justice system. This study examines how the Supreme Court addresses instances where its rulings conflict, focusing on the mechanisms it employs to ensure legal coherence. By analyzing specific case studies of contradictory decisions, this research explores the reasons behind these inconsistencies and the strategies the Court uses to resolve or justify them. Using a mixed-methods approach, the study combines qualitative analysis of case law and legal texts with interviews from legal practitioners, alongside quantitative examination of trends in judicial decisions over time. The findings reveal that while doctrines such as stare decisis are meant to guide the Court towards consistency, the complexity of legal interpretation, evolving societal norms, and external political pressures can lead to occasional contradictions. The novelty of this research lies in its case study approach, which provides a deeper understanding of the Court's internal decision-making processes when faced with conflicting rulings. The urgency of this issue is highlighted by growing calls for judicial reform worldwide, emphasizing the need for clear and reliable legal guidance from the judiciary. Ultimately, this study contributes to the broader international discussion on judicial independence, legal reform, and how courts balance the demands of consistency with the evolution of legal thought, offering valuable insights into the challenges faced by the highest courts in maintaining the integrity of the legal system.