The Essence of Justice in Lawmaking: A Legal Philosophical Analysis of Meaningful Participation in Constitutional Review

The formulation of legislation in Indonesia is frequently ensnared in formalistic legalism and autocratic tendencies that reduce citizens to mere regulatory objects rather than sovereign subjects. Grounded in legal philosophy, the doctrine of meaningful participation emerges as a synthesis of procedural and substantive justice, bridging procedural democracy toward genuine deliberative democracy. This doctrine mandates qualitative, transparent public engagement that must cumulatively satisfy three fundamental pillars: the right to be heard, the right to be considered, and the right to be explained. Examined through John Rawls’s theory of justice as fairness, meaningful participation serves to restore political equality, constrain oligarchic dominance, and secure an egalitarian sphere for marginalized groups. This normative shift is reinforced in Indonesian Constitutional Court jurisprudence—notably Decisions No. 91/PUU-XVIII/2020 and No. 64/PUU-XXIII/2025—which establish that the formal constitutionality of a statute is inherently contingent upon the substantive quality of public engagement. Ultimately, legislative justice transcends administrative compliance and ceremonial consultations; it hinges on the bona fide accountability of lawmakers to earnestly integrate public deliberation, thereby securing genuine ethical and constitutional legitimacy.