Abstract: Research aims 1). Examining, analyzing and finding a philosophical extension of substantive justice in disputes over the results of the election of Governors, Regents and Mayors at the Constitutional Court. This research uses normative legal research methods. This research was carried out by examining existing concepts, doctrines, theories and statutory provisions using a philosophical approach, a statutory approach and a conceptual approach. The research results show that: 1). The philosophy of extending substantive justice in disputes over the results of the election of Governors, Regents and Mayors in the Constitutional Court is a form of legal application that must be manifested in various Constitutional Court Decisions. This is because so far the Constitutional Court decisions have not reflected the values of justice, especially substantive justice. Therefore, the Constitutional Court decision does not fulfill the sense of justice, usefulness and legal certainty in achieving legal objectives. The Constitutional Court as a constitutional court must be enforced by prioritizing substantive justice in order to be able to prove that there are no structured, systematic and massive violations.