Abstract
This study highlights the existence of a legal vacuum caused by the lack of clear and explicit regulations governing the legal force of Constitutional Court (MK) decisions in the impeachment process of the President and Vice President. The uncertainty regarding whether MK’s ruling is binding or merely advisory creates ambiguity in constitutional practice and opens opportunities for political intervention. This situation weakens the principle of legal certainty and risks turning the impeachment mechanism into a tool of political contestation rather than a constitutional safeguard. The purpose of this study is to examine in depth the legal force of the Constitutional Court’s decision within the impeachment process in Indonesia, especially when viewed through the framework of the rule of law. Using normative legal research methods supported by legislative, comparative, and conceptual approaches, this research evaluates the scope of MK’s authority and the constitutional principles that should guide impeachment procedures. The findings indicate that MK’s decision must be final and binding (erga omnes) to reinforce its position as the guardian of the constitution and protector of democratic governance. Strengthening the binding nature of MK’s decision is essential to maintain institutional balance among state organs and prevent impeachment from being dominated by political interests. Furthermore, this study draws relevance from the concept of the Mazhalim Court in Islamic law, which prioritizes substantive justice and accountability of leaders. This comparison encourages the refinement of Indonesia’s impeachment procedural law to ensure that justice, not politics, remains the primary foundation of constitutional processes.