Constitutional Limits of the Constitutional Court's Interpretation Between Negative Legislators and Positive Legislators

Abstract

This article examines the constitutional limits of the Constitutional Court's interpretation, from negative to positive legislative perspectives. The main issue raised is the blurring of the line between norm testing and norm creation when the Court uses conditional, additive, or substitutive decisions. The goal is to formulate legitimate operational parameters to ensure judicial corrections remain within the framework of the 1945 Constitution while providing certainty for legislative follow-up.

The method used is a normative juridical approach with a statute approach, a case approach, and a conceptual-comparative approach. The study results present four parameter clusters: necessity, proportionality, systemic coherence, and accountability. The necessity cluster examines constitutional flaws and the risk of legal vacuum. The proportionality cluster assesses the adequacy of less intrusive remedies that are minimal and temporary. The systemic coherence cluster examines the integration of the ruling with the authority architecture and normative hierarchy. The accountability cluster requires deadlines, institutional division of duties, and public monitoring mechanisms.

The application of parameters demonstrates a clearer distinction. In the case of systemic procedural defects, a conditional decision can be used to maintain certainty without shifting the role of lawmakers. In the case of substantial defects involving rights, outright annulment is more appropriate, unless minimal transitional arrangements are necessary to protect rights. In the realm of technical and polycentric policies, judicial restraint should be prioritized.

In conclusion, the four-cluster parameters, along with the matrix for follow-up from decisions to legislative responses, clarify the Court's interpretational boundaries, maintain the rule of law and checks and balances, and improve the quality of post-decision legislation. This model offers a practical tool for the Court, lawmakers, and stakeholders to ensure effective, proportional, and accountable judicial corrections.