Under the Conditionally Constitutional Doctrine, the Indonesian Constitutional Court may declare that a provision of a statute is constitutional if it is read in a way described by the Constitutional Court. In practice, this doctrine allows the Constitutional Court to create new legal norms that might not be covered or even considered in the reviewed statute. The main question is: does the Constitutional Court have any legitimate reasons to use such doctrine? This is especially crucial because the Indonesian House of Representatives once banned the doctrine through amendment to Law No. 24 of 2003 on Constitutional Court in 2011 and shortly thereafter, the Constitutional Court declared that the amendment is unconstitutional. In this article, I will discuss the validity of the Conditionally Constitutional Doctrine through the lens of various theories of legal interpretation, and further conclude that given the nature of judicial review process, attempting to answer the above question from the perspective of traditional legal interpretation theories would not be fruitful. Instead, I would recommend using a pragmatic approach in dealing with the existence of the doctrine and offer certain aspects that can be further pursued by Indonesian legal researchers in order to improve the use of such doctrine.

中文翻译：

---

有条件的宪法学说是否符合宪法？

根据有条件宪法学说，如果以宪法法院所描述的方式阅读法规，则印度尼西亚宪法法院可以宣布法规的条款是符合宪法的。在实践中，这一原则允许宪法法院制定新的法律规范，这些规范可能没有被审查过的法规所涵盖甚至考虑。主要问题是：宪法法院是否有正当理由使用这种学说？这一点尤其重要，因为印度尼西亚众议院曾于 2011 年通过对 2003 年第 24 号宪法法院法的修正案禁止了该学说，此后不久，宪法法院宣布该修正案违宪。在本文中，我将通过各种法律解释理论的视角来讨论附条件宪法学说的有效性，并进一步得出结论，鉴于司法审查程序的性质，试图从传统法律解释理论的角度来回答上述问题是行不通的。 . 相反，我建议使用务实的方法来处理该学说的存在，并提供印度尼西亚法律研究人员可以进一步研究的某些方面，以改进该学说的使用。