Analyzing the concept of incompleteness and ambiguity of norms in formal testing of laws at the constitutional court

The effectiveness, fairness, and legal certainty of Indonesia’s constitutional system are significantly undermined by the inadequacy and ambiguity of legislative standards. Deficiencies in legislative drafting, such as insufficient regulatory provisions and vague legal language, often contribute to this issue. This research examines the role of the Constitutional Court in addressing the incompleteness and ambiguity of legal norms through formal judicial review. By employing a normative legal research methodology with a descriptive-analytical approach, this study analyzes constitutional provisions and selected Constitutional Court decisions, including the judicial review of the Job Creation Law and the Revision of the Corruption Eradication Commission Law. The findings underscore the Constitutional Court’s pivotal role in safeguarding constitutional supremacy by providing interpretative guidance for unclear or incomplete legal standards. The Court has successfully identified procedural deficiencies in the legislative process that compromise transparency and public participation, as exemplified in Decision Number 91/PUU-XVIII/2020 concerning the Job Creation Law. However, this interpretative function frequently raises concerns about the limits of the Court’s jurisdiction. This study argues that legislative reform is imperative to minimize the occurrence of incomplete and ambiguous norms. It advocates for the enhancement of legislative drafting quality, the professionalization of legislators, and the reinforcement of public participation mechanisms. This research contributes to the broader discourse on the Constitutional Court’s function in mitigating systemic legislative deficiencies and fostering a more inclusive, responsive, and constitutionally grounded legal framework.