This paper analyses the meaningful participation mandate in Indonesian lawmaking, and particularly its codification in Law 13/2022, within the framework of Fathi Osman’s conception of shura. Employing doctrinal legal research with statutory and conceptual approaches, it advances a novel conceptual parallel. The findings demonstrate that the three pillars of the mandate the right to be heard, the right to be considered, and the right to be explained are the direct legal-procedural operationalisation of shura’s substantive principles of mandatory consultation, binding deliberation, and effective, non-ceremonial participation. Law 13/2022, however, constitutes a half-hearted codification. This is most evident in Article 96 paragraph (8), whose permissive verb dapat frames the pivotal right to be explained as a discretion rather than an obligation; because consideration can be verified only through explanation, the formulation hollows out two pillars at once, severs public accountability, and robs public input of its deliberative force. That substantive failure contravenes both the meaningful participation mandate and the shura obligation, rendering the process incapable of achieving its goal of maslaha. The paper therefore proposes a reconstruction of Article 96 that makes the right to be explained mandatory and reasoned, strengthens the right to be heard through a plain-language explanatory statement securing intelligibility rather than mere access, and mandates a centralised online participation portal. The proposal supplies the courts with a determinate procedural benchmark for formal judicial review