Adjudicating Certainty: Paradigms of Finality and Fallibility in the Decisions of Indonesia’s Constitutional Court

The Indonesian Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi – MK) occupies a pivotal role as the authoritative interpreter of the Constitution, wielding power through decisions declared final and binding. This inherent finality, essential for legal certainty and constitutional supremacy, exists in perpetual tension with the undeniable reality of judicial fallibility. Utilizing normative, philosophical, and comparative legal methodologies, this article contrasts the traditional formalist-positivist paradigm with contemporary legal realist, critical, and institutionalist perspectives to analyze this fundamental tension. It argues that while absolute finality is a constitutional necessity, a failure to acknowledge and institutionally manage fallibility poses significant risks to the Court’s legitimacy and democratic function. Drawing on specific Indonesian cases, legal theory, and comparative examples, the article concludes that embracing mechanisms addressing fallibility is crucial for strengthening, rather than undermining, the essential finality of the MK and its enduring role in Indonesian democracy.