This article asks whether Article 28J(2) of the 1945 Constitution embeds the idea and test of proportionality. Using a doctrinal method, it combines semantic analysis of “just requirements,” a review of the amendment travaux, comparative references (Germany’s structured proportionality; Canada and South Africa), and close readings of key Constitutional Court decisions. The study finds, first, that the framers’ understanding of “just requirements” does not reflect the German-style proportionality structure; instead, it is drafted and later read as a call to balance individual rights with collective interests. Second, Article 28J(2) positions individuals—not the legislature—as the primary addressees of the limitation clause, weakening its function as a constitutional check on rights-restricting statutes. Third, the Court’s case law sporadically employs unstructured balancing but has not developed a disciplined, multi-step proportionality test. Normatively, the article argues that introducing a structured proportionality analysis would provide a clearer burden on lawmakers and a more predictable judicial framework, thereby counterbalancing the Constitution’s relatively weak design for rights protection. © 2025 by Jurnal Konstitusi.