An Alternative Model for Constitutional Question Adjudication in Indonesia
A Comparative Study of Ten Constitutional Court Jurisdictions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56442/ijble.v7i1.1486Keywords:
constitutional question; concrete review; constitutional court; judicial referral; constitutional rights; IndonesiaAbstract
Indonesia's constitutional review system entrusts the Constitutional Court with the authority to review statutes against the 1945 Constitution, yet it does not provide a procedural channel through which ordinary judges may refer constitutional doubts arising in pending cases. This doctrinal and comparative legal study formulates an alternative model of constitutional question adjudication for Indonesia by examining ten constitutional-court jurisdictions: Austria, Italy, Germany, South Africa, South Korea, Hungary, Croatia, Romania, the Czech Republic, and the Russian Federation. The study uses statutory, conceptual, case-based, and comparative approaches and analyses primary legal materials, constitutional-court legislation, judicial decisions, and relevant scholarship on centralized constitutional review and concrete norm control. The findings show that constitutional question mechanisms share several core features: they arise from concrete litigation, are normally initiated by judges, require the challenged norm to be decisive for the pending case, usually suspend the underlying proceedings, and produce decisions with binding force beyond the individual dispute. At the same time, the jurisdictions differ in their referral filters, admissibility thresholds, procedural timelines, and remedial effects. Building on these comparative findings, this article proposes a semi-mandatory judicial referral model for Indonesia. The model requires constitutional amendment to Article 24C of the 1945 Constitution, preliminary screening by the Supreme Court, strict admissibility criteria, a stay of proceedings, expedited review by the Constitutional Court, and final and binding decisions with erga omnes and limited retroactive effects. The proposed model preserves judicial independence, reduces the risk of docket congestion, and strengthens preventive protection of constitutional rights in concrete adjudication.
References
Butt, S., & Lindsey, T. (2018). Indonesian law. Oxford University Press.
Cappelletti, M. (1989). The judicial process in comparative perspective. Clarendon Press.
Chalid, H., & Yaqin, A. A. (2019). Initiating the constitutional question institutionalization by expanding the Constitutional Court's constitutional review authority. Jurnal Konstitusi, 16(2), 365-390. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1628
Collins, J. S., & Faiz, P. M. (2018). Penambahan kewenangan constitutional question di Mahkamah Konstitusi sebagai upaya untuk melindungi hak-hak konstitusional warga negara. Jurnal Konstitusi, 14(4), 688-709.
Ferreres Comella, V. (2009). Constitutional courts and democratic values: A European perspective. Yale University Press.
Garlicki, L. (2007). Constitutional courts versus supreme courts. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 5(1), 44-68. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mol044
Ginsburg, T. (2003). Judicial review in new democracies: Constitutional courts in Asian cases. Cambridge University Press.
Hahm, C. (2012). Beyond law vs. politics in constitutional adjudication: Lessons from Korea. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 10(1), 6-34. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mor063
Hamidi, J., & Lutfi, M. (2010). Constitutional question: Antara realitas politik dan implementasi hukumnya. Jurnal Konstitusi, 7(1), 29-48.
Isra, S. (2024). The Indonesian Constitutional Court. In R. Dixon & T. Ginsburg (Eds.), Comparative constitutional law in Asia. Brill.
Jeon, S. H. (2019). Signaling the turn: The supermajority requirement and judicial power on the Constitutional Court of Korea. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 67(1), 180-205. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avz008
Kelsen, H. (1942). Judicial review of legislation: A comparative study of the Austrian and the American Constitution. The Journal of Politics, 4(2), 183-200. https://doi.org/10.2307/2125770
Kommers, D. P., & Miller, R. A. (2012). The constitutional jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany (3rd ed.). Duke University Press.
Lailam, T. (2023). A proposal to adopt concrete judicial review in Indonesia: A study on the German Federal Constitutional Court. Padjadjaran Journal of Law, 10(1), 148-173.
Pivoda, M. (2023). Constitutional courts asking questions: A deliberative potential of preliminary reference mechanism. Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, 25, 141-160. https://doi.org/10.1017/cel.2023.15
Nugraha, X., Bachtiar, A., & Arifin, Z. (2019). Constitutional question: Alternatif baru perlindungan hak konstitusional warga negara melalui concrete review di Indonesia. Negara Hukum, 10(1), 146-162.
Rautenbach, I. M. (2013). Constitutional Court 1995-2012: How did the cases reach the Court, why did the Court refuse to consider some of them, and how often did the Court invalidate laws and actions? Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, 16(4), 46-93.
Roux, T. (2018). Indonesia's judicial review regime in comparative perspective. Constitutional Review, 4(2), 188-219. https://doi.org/10.31078/consrev422
Stone Sweet, A. (2000). Governing with judges: Constitutional politics in Europe. Oxford University Press.
Tega, D. (2021). The Italian Constitutional Court in its context: A narrative. European Constitutional Law Review, 17(3), 369-404.
Venice Commission. (2011). Study on individual access to constitutional justice (CDL-AD(2010)039rev). Council of Europe.
Wicaksono, D. A. (2022). Influencing or intervention? Impact of Constitutional Court decisions on the Supreme Court in Indonesia. Constitutional Review, 8(2), 219-245.
The 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.
Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia, as amended.
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia, Decision No. 013-022/PUU-IV/2006.
Federal Constitutional Law of Austria (Bundes-Verfassungsgesetz).
Austrian Constitutional Court Act 1953 (Verfassungsgerichtshofgesetz 1953).
Constitution of the Italian Republic.
Constitutional Law No. 1 of 1948 (Italy).
Law No. 87 of 1953 on the Constitution and Functioning of the Constitutional Court (Italy).
Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany.
Act on the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz).
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.
Constitutional Court Complementary Act 13 of 1995 (South Africa).
Constitution of the Republic of Korea.
Constitutional Court Act of the Republic of Korea.
Fundamental Law of Hungary.
Act CLI of 2011 on the Constitutional Court of Hungary.
Constitution of the Republic of Croatia.
Constitutional Act on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia.
Constitution of Romania.
Law No. 47 of 1992 on the Organization and Functioning of the Constitutional Court of Romania.
Constitution of the Czech Republic.
Act No. 182/1993 Coll. on the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic.
Constitution of the Russian Federation.
Federal Constitutional Law No. 1-FKZ on the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
