C Constitutional court decision number 60/puu-xxii/2024 features an ultra petita ruling that raises fundamental issues regarding the limits of the constitutional court\\\'s authority in the judicial review of statutes. this occurred because the court declared article 40, paragraph (1) of law number 10 of 2016 concerning the election of governors, regents, and mayors unconstitutional, even though the petitioners the labour party and the gelora party—only requested a review of article 40, paragraph (3).this research aims to describe and analyze the legal basis of the constitutional court\\\'s considerations in rendering the ultra petita decision and to uncover its legal implications for indonesia\\\'s constitutional system. this study employs a normative juridical method of a descriptive nature, utilizing a statutory approach, and relies on primary and secondary legal materials gathered through literature study. the data is analyzed qualitatively, and conclusions are drawn deductively.the research results indicate that the basis for rendering the ultra petita decision lies in the inseparable systemic connection between article 40, paragraph (1) and paragraph (3), meaning that a partial annulment would potentially leave a legal vacuum. in this context, the court applied the doctrine of necessary implication.the application of this ultra petita ruling creates dual implications: the strengthening of protection for the political rights of political parties and the reinforcement of the constitutional court\\\'s position as both the guardian and the final interpreter of the constitution. this study recommends that the constitutional court apply ultra petita selectively, accompanied by explicit and measurable argumentation, and that lawmakers draft norms more coherently to prevent similar constitutional disputes in the future.