Regulatory Problems of the Constitutional Court’s Honorary Council in the Hierarchy of Laws and Regulations and the Principle of the Rule of Law

The establishment of the Constitutional Court Honorary Council (Majelis Kehormatan Mahkamah Konstitusi or MKMK) constitutes a normative mechanism for enforcing the Code of Ethics and Code of Conduct for Constitutional Justices. However, the existence of a formal legal basis does not, by itself, resolve questions concerning the institution's normative legitimacy. This article examines the normative legitimacy of the legal framework governing the establishment of the MKMK from the perspectives of the hierarchy of laws and regulations and the principle of the rule of law. The study employs normative legal research using statutory and conceptual approaches. The findings demonstrate that the establishment of the MKMK is grounded in positive law, particularly Article 27A paragraph (2) of Law Number 7 of 2020 concerning the Third Amendment to Law Number 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court, which is subsequently elaborated through Constitutional Court regulations. Article 8 of Law Number 12 of 2011 concerning the Establishment of Laws and Regulations also recognizes regulations issued by state institutions, provided that they are mandated by higher-level legislation or enacted pursuant to authority vested in those institutions. Nevertheless, such recognition does not preclude scrutiny of the appropriateness of their substantive content, hierarchical consistency, legality, and capacity to provide legal certainty. This article concludes that the normative legitimacy of the MKMK must be assessed at multiple levels. Its formal legitimacy is grounded in positive law, whereas its normative adequacy depends on the clarity of the attribution of authority, the limits of the substantive content of implementing regulations, and procedural safeguards consistent with the principle of the rule of law. This conclusion does not imply that the establishment of the MKMK is unlawful; rather, it underscores the need for a legal assessment that distinguishes formal validity from the quality of normative legitimacy.