The incompleteness of Formal testing laws in Indonesia: comparative insights from Germany and the United States

Justice and legal clarity are undermined by the Indonesian judicial system's omission of formal testing from the law. Constitutional Court rulings are inconsistent and legal goods lose legitimacy due to this issue, which includes a lack of regulations on the boundaries of legislative procedural legality, standards of evidence, and deadlines for submitting formal tests. The purpose of this research is to examine how the lack of formal testing affects legal certainty and justice, and to provide solutions to these issues via reconstruction. The research draws on descriptive and juridical-analytical techniques as well as normative legal methodologies. Based on primary sources like the Republic of Indonesia Constitution of 1945 and Law Number 24 of 2003 regulating the Constitutional Court, as well as secondary sources like scientific journals and worldwide comparative studies, this research seeks to understand the system of law in Indonesia. The purpose of this research was to find the best practices for formal testing systems that may be implemented in Indonesia by comparing those in the US and Germany. According to the study's findings, constitutional rights are less protected due to the lack of official testing laws, which leads to legal confusion. The regulations need to be rewritten with specific guidelines, high evidence requirements, and application due dates. To improve the efficacy and credibility of formal testing in Indonesia, it is suggested that the country adopt some of Germany's best practices, such as filing deadlines and the substantive approach in judicial review, similar to the US. The findings of this study will help make our country's justice system more open, honest, and responsible.