Indonesian Constitutional Court

This article discusses the constitutional debate on death penalty in Indonesia. This debate resurfaces when a group of death row inmates lodged a judicial review to the Constitutional Court against death penalty articles under the 1997 Narcotics Law, used by the criminal court to sentence them.

The Constitutional Court of Indonesia plays significant role in securing democracy in Indonesia. In exercising their authorities, including the election result dispute and judicial review, the Court continues to affirm institutional judicial legitimacy and pursue their role to guard 1945 Constitution. The first Chief Justice Jimly Asshiddiqie showed how within five years of the Court’s establishment, he could strategically maximize its momentum and build the Court as a respectful institution. The Chief Justice Mahfud M D was then elected to reduce the judicial activism started by Jimly’s bench. However, against promises and expectations, Mahfud M D brought the Court to a level far beyond the imagination of the Constitution drafters. Parliament and President tried to limit the Court’s authority, not ones, and the Court was able to overcome those constrain. Current various available studies observed only how the Court issued their decisions and solely focus to the impact of the decisions. Scholars slightly ignore other constitutional actors in studying about the Court. In fact, political environment where the Court operated is one of the most important aspects which strengthen the Court’s institutional legitimacy. This paper attempts to discover the rise of the Court from political environment view outside the court. Political parties’ maturity and political constraint are the key factors that support the development of the Court’s institutional power.

One of important mechanisms considered effective to protect civil and political rights of the citizens in Indonesia is constitutional review. This mechanism was created after the constitutional reform by establishing the new Constitutional Court in 2003 as an independent and separate court from the Supreme Court. This article examines the development of human rights guaranteed in the Indonesian Constitution. It also provides a critical analysis of the Constitutional Court's role in protecting civil and political rights in Indonesia through its landmark decisions on five categories, namely: (1) freedom of assembly and association; (2) freedom of opinion, speech and expression; (3) freedom of religion; (4) right to life; and (5) due process of law. This research was conducted based on qualitative research methodology. It used a non-doctrinal approach by researching the socio-political impacts of the Constitutional Court's decisions. Although there are still inconsistencies in its decisions, the research concludes that the Constitutional Court has taken a step forward for a better protection of civil and political rights in Indonesia that never existed prior to the reform.

Keywords: civil and political rights, constitutional court, human rights, Indonesia

---
Abstrak

Salah satu mekanisme yang dianggap efektif untuk melindungi hak sipil dan politik warga negara di Indonesia adalah pengujian konstitusional. Mekanisme ini dibentuk pasca reformasi konstitusi dengan mendirikan Mahkamah Konstitusi pada 2003 sebagai peradilan yang independen dan terpisah dari Mahkamah Agung. Artikel ini menganalisa perkembangan hak asasi manusia yang dijamin di dalam UUD 1945. Selain itu, artikel ini juga memberikan analisa kritis terhadap peran Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam perlindungan hak sipil dan politik di Indonesia melalui putusan-putusan pentingnya (landmark decisions) pada lima kategori, yaitu: (1) kebebasan untuk bekumpul dan berserikat; (2) kebebasan berpendapat, berbicara, dan berekspresi; (3) kebebasan beragama; (4) hak untuk hidup; dan (5) proses peradilan yang adil. Penelitian ini dilakukan berdasarkan pada metodologi penelitian kualitatif dan menggunakan pendekatan non-doktrinal dengan meneliti dampak sosio-politik dari putusan-putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Meskipun masih terdapat inkonsistensi di dalam putusannya, penelitian ini menyimpulkan bahwa Mahkamah Konstitusi telah memberikan kontribusi satu langkah ke depan yang lebih baik terhadap perlindungan hak sipil dan politik di Indonesia yang tidak pernah terjadi sebelum era reformasi.

Kata Kunci: hak asasi manusia, hak sipil dan politik, mahkamah konstitusi, Indonesia

Indonesia implements dualism of judicial review system because there are two different judicial institutions that are granted the authority to review laws and regulations, namely the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court. This research aims to analyse the problems caused by the dualism of judicial review system. It found two main legal problems of the current system. First, there is an inconsistency of decisions concerning judicial review cases for the same legal issues decided by the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court. Second, there is no mechanism to review the constitutionality of People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) decisions and regulations under the level of law. Based on these findings, this research suggests that the authority to review all laws and regulations should be integrated under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court.

One of the important developments in our constitutional structure was the establishment of the Constitutional Court as a response to the demand for a strengthening of the checks and balances in the system of state administration. The improvement in the constitutional situation post the amendment has been very fast. Recently, Indonesian society entered a new stage of constitutional practice as regards the fight for the basic right of freedom of religion.

This article analyses the development of freedom of religions in Indonesia and a potential conflict of interpretation between the Constitution and the Holy Book.

A jurisdiction of the Indonesian Constitutional Court concerning constitutional adjudication is only limited to review the constitutionality of national law. There is no mechanism for challenging any decision or action made by public authorities that violate fundamental rights enshrined in the Indonesian Constitution. This article argues that constitutional complaint and constitutional question might be adopted as new jurisdictions of the Indonesian Constitutional Court in order to strengthen the protection of fundamental rights of its citizen. It also identifies main problems that will be faced by the Constitutional Court in exercising constitutional complaint and constitutional question. For instance, the Court will be burdened with too many cases as experienced by other countries. A clear mechanism for filtering applications lodged to the Constitutional Court and the time limit for deciding cases are important elements that have to be regulated to overcome the problems. In addition, the institutional structure of the Constitutional Court has to be improved, particularly to support its decision-making process.

Inlate 2012, the Indonesian Constitutional Court disbanded BP Migas - the institution the Indonesian Government had established to regulate and monitor the oil and gas sector A majority of the Court decided that BP Migas exerted insufficient control over the sector, thereby violating Article 33 of Indonesia's Constitution. Inparticular, the majority held that Article 33 required that the state maintain virtually unbridled control over the sector, including by directly managing upstream activities. This article sets out the Court's reasoning in this case and critiques it. It also speculates on the likely implications of the decision, particularly for other natural resource sectors, in which many foreign investors are involved.

Sustainable development encompasses three pillars based on environmental, economic, and social values that are interdependent and mutually reinforce human rights. Between sustainable development and human rights there is an inseparable relationship and a respect for human rights that has been recognized as a prerequisite for development.

This article argues that human rights protection can give a significant contribution to the development in Indonesia.

A jurisdiction of the Indonesian Constitutional Court concerning constitutional adjudication is only limited to review the constitutionality of national law. There is no mechanism for challenging any decision or action made by public authorities that violate fundamental rights enshrined in the Indonesian Constitution. This article argues that constitutional complaint and constitutional question might be adopted as new jurisdictions of the Indonesian Constitutional Court in order to strengthen the protection of fundamental rights of its citizen. It also identifies main problems that will be faced by the Constitutional Court in exercising constitutional complaint and constitutional question. For instance, the Court will be burdened with too many cases as experienced by other countries.  A clear mechanism for filtering applications lodged to the Constitutional Court and the time limit for deciding cases are important elements that have to be regulated to overcome the problems. In addit...

Kehadiran Mahkamah Konstitusi di Indonesia yang terlahir dari rahim reformasi telah menarik perhatian banyak kalangan akademisi. Perannya yang dinilai strategis sebagai salah satu pemain kunci di dalam politik nasional menjadi daya tarik sendiri untuk dikaji. Satu dekade sejak pendiriannya, MK dipimpin oleh empat Ketua MK yang berbeda. Di setiap masa kepemimpinan yang berbeda tersebut, MK mengalami pasang surut kekuatan di tengah sistem ketatanegaraan Indonesia.

Tulisan ini merupakan tinjauan terhadap artikel yang ditulis oleh Theunis Roux dan Fritz Siregar berjudul “Trajectories of Curial Power: The Rise, Fall and Partial Rehabilitation of the Indonesian Constitutional Court” yang dimuat dalam Melbourne University Asian Law Journal (2015) terkait dengan fluktuasi kekuatan MK sebagai veto player di Indonesia.

The isolation of politically nuanced cases has become more widespread with the development of the “political question” doctrine. This doctrine explains that the general courts are not intended to address political issues. Instead, these political questions should be decided by the parliament or the people through political processes (Ginsburg, 2003), or by a specialized Constitutional Court. This doctrine has been stated firmly in various Supreme Court decisions, such as Tanada vs. Cuenco (1957) in the Philippines and Baker vs. Carr (1962) in the US.

Efforts to resolve political disputes through legal means by the creation of Constitutional Courts or similar judicial institutions have sprung up all over the world. Ran Hirschl (2008) refers to this phenomenon as the “judicialization of politics”. This article examines the practice of judicialization of politics in Indonesia focusing on the Indonesian Constitutional Court.