CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS AND JUDICIAL REVIEW: LESSON LEARNED FOR INDONESIA (MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI DAN PENGUJIAN UNDANG-UNDANG: PEMBELAJARAN BAGI INDONESIA)

Muhammad Siddiq Armia

Abstract

In the context of reviewing law through judiciary organ, the court plays significant role to review several regulation. This article specifically will discuss regarding the role of court on judicial review. This idea spreads out worldwide including in Indonesia. The Constitutional court and judicial review are two words which having inextricably meaning that attached to each other. On worldwide, the system of reviewing law by involving judges commonly has been practiced by several countries. There are two most significant state organs that plays role in the system, they are constitutional court and supreme court. Most countries do not have constitutional court and will deliver the authority of judicial review through supreme court. It has added more tasks, not only to adjudicate the common case, but also regarding constitutionality matter of an act against constitution. This model is commonly known as a centralized model, as practiced in the United State of America. In the Countries that owned a constitutional court, will certainly deliver the authority of judicial review through constitutional court. 108 NEGARA HUKUM: Vol. 8, No. 1, Juni 2017 This model is commonly known as Kelsenian’s model. In this model, the constitutional court will merely focus on the constitutionality of regulations, and ensuring those regulations not in contradicting with the constitution. The Supreme Court in this model merely focus on handling common cases instead of regulations. Those two model of judicial review (through the constitutional court and the supreme court) has widely been implemented in the world legal systems, including in Indonesia. In the authoritarian regime, Indonesia implemented the centralized model, which positioned the Supreme Court as the single state organ to handle the common case and also judicial review. Having difficulties with the centralized model, after the constitution amendment in 2003, Indonesia has officially formed the constitutional court as the guardian of constitution. However, the Indonesian Constitutional Court (ICC) merely examine and/or review the statute that against the Indonesian’s Constitution year 1945, and related to the legislations products lower than the statute will remains the portion of the Supreme Court jurisdiction. Such modification is vulnerable resulting a judgement conflict between the ICC and the Supreme Court.

ABSTRAK

Posisi peradilan memainkan peranan penting dalam proses uji materi undang-undang. Mahkamah konstitusi dan pengujian undang-undang merupakan dua kata yang saling berkaitan memiliki keterikatan. Ide dasar pengujian peraturan perundang-undangan melalui lembaga peradilan berkembang luas di dunia hingga sampai ke Indonesia. Sistem pengujian undang-undang dengan melibatkan hakim sudah sering digunakan dan dipraktekkan di berbagai negara. Terdapat dua organ kenegaraan yang mempunyai peran vital dalam memaikan peran ini yaitu mahkamah konstitusi dan mahkamah agung. Model seperti ini lebih dikenal dengan model terpusat di suatu lembaga negara sebagaimana yang di Amerika Serikat. Sedangkan negara yang mempunyai mahkamah konstitusi akan melimpahkan kewenangan pengujian undang-undang kepada mahkamah konstitusi, model ini dikenal dengan model Kelsen. Pada model ini mahkamah konstitusi hanya berfokus pada konstitutionalitas peraturan peraturan perundang-undangan serta memastikannya agar tidak bertentangan dengan norma dalam konstitusi. Mahkamah agung pada model ini hanya berfokus untuk menangani kasus sehari-hari saja, bukan untuk menguji peraturan perundang-undangan. Dua model ini pengujian undang-undang ini (melalui mahkamah konstitusi dan mahkamah agung) sering diterapkan dalam sistem ketatanegaraan dunia, termasuk juga di Indonesia. Pada zaman rezim otoriter, Indonesia menerapkan sistem pengujian undang-undang terpusat, dengan memposisikan Mahkamah Agung sebagai organ tunggal negara yang menangani perkara sehari-hari dan pengujian undang-undang. Menemukan hambatan dengan model terpusat ini, akhirnya Indonesia membentuk Mahkamah Konstitusi. Mahkamah Konstitusi Indonesia hanya menguji undang-undang terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar 1945. Sedangkan peraturan perundangundangan di bawah undang-undang tetap menjadi kewenangan Mahkamah Agung. Modifikasi seperti ini berakibat rentannya terjadi pertentangan putusan antara Mahkamah Konstitusi dan Mahkamah Agung.

Keywords

comparative studies; constitutional courts; judicial review; studi perbandingan; mahkamah konstitusi; pengujian undang-undang

Full Text:

PDF

References

Journal

Bellamy, Richard. “The Liberty Of The Moderns: Market Freedom And Democracy Within The EU,” Global Constitutionalism, Vol. 1. No. 01. March 2012.

Berat, Lynn. “Constitutional Court of South Africa and Jurisdictional Questions: In the Interest of Justice.” The International Journal of Constitutional Law. Vol. 3. No.1. January 2005, 2005.

Börzel, Tanja A. and Ulrich Sedelmeier. “Larger And More Law Abiding? The Impact Of Enlargement On Compliance In The European Union.” Journal of European Public Policy. Vol. 24. No.2. February 2017.

Cappelletti, Mauro. “Repudiating MontesquieuThe Expansion and Legitimacy of Constitutional Justice.” The Catholic University Law Review. Vol. 35. Vol.1. October 1985.

Craig, Paul. “Ultra Vires and the Foundations of Judicial Review.” The Cambridge Law Journal. Vol. 57. No. 01. March 1998.

Dainow, Joseph. “Civil Law and the Common Law: Some Points of Comparison.” The American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 15, July 1966.

Dugard, Jackie. “Court of First Instance?: Towards a Pro-Poor Jurisdiction for the South African Constitutional Court.” South African Journal on Human Rights. Vol. 22. No. 2. April 2006.

Dugard, John. “International Law and the South African Constitution.” European Journal of International Law. Vol. 8. No.1. February 1997.

Ferejohn, John A. and Larry D. Kramer. “Independent Judges, Dependent Judiciary: Institutionalizing Judicial Restraint.” New York University Law Review. Vol. 77. No.4. October 2002.

Ferejohn, John and Pasquale Pasquino. “Constitutional Adjudication: Lessons from Europe.” Texas Law Review. Vol. 82. No.7. June 2003.

Gibson, James L. and Gregory A. Caldeira. “Defenders of Democracy? Legitimacy, Popular Acceptance, and the South African Constitutional Cour.” Journal of Politics. Vol. 65. No. 1. February 2003.

Harlow, C. “Public law and Popular Justice.” Modern Law Review. Vol. 65. No.1. January 2002.

Hilbink, Lisa. “Beyond Manicheanism: Assessing the New Constitutionalism.” The Maryland Law Review. Vol. 65. No.1, February 2006.

Himma, Kenneth Einar . “Making Sense of Constitutional Disagreement: Legal Positivism, the Bill of Rights, and the Conventional Rule of Recognition in the United States.” Journal of Law in Society. Vol. 4. No. 2. December 2003.

Hübner, Denise Carolin. “The ‘National Decisions’ Database (Dec. Nat): Introducing A Database On National Courts’ Interactions With European Law.” European Union Politics. Vol. 17. No.2. June 2016.

Kelsen, Hans. ‘Judicial Review Of Legislation: A Comparative Study Of The Austrian And The American Constitution.’ Journal of Politics. Vol. 4. No.2. May 1942.

Knight, Jack and Lee Epstein. “The Norm Of Stare Decisis.” American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 40. No.4. November 1996.

Lee, Frances E. “How Party Polarization Affects Governance.” Annual Review of Political Science. Vol.18. No.1. February 2015.

Lollini, Andrea. “South African Constitutional Court Experience: Reasoning Patterns Based on Foreign Law.” The Utrecht Law Review. Vol. 8. No.2. May 2012.

Malecki, Michael. “Do ECJ Judges All Speak with the Same Voice? Evidence of Divergent Preferences from the Judgments of Chambers.” Journal of European Public Policy. Vol. 19. No. 1. December 2011.

Mancini, G. Federico and David T. Keeling. “From CILFIT to ERT: The Constitutional Challenge Facing the European Court.” Yearbook of European Law. Vol. 11. No. 1. November 1991.

Mendez, Mario. “Constitutional Review Of Treaties: Lessons For Comparative Constitutional Design And Practice.” International Journal of Constitutional Law. Vol. 15. No.1. March 2017.

Menéndez, Agustín J. “The Crisis of Law and the European Crises: From the Social and Democratic Rechtsstaat to the Consolidating State of (Pseudo-) technocratic Governance.” Journal of Law and Society. Vol. 44. No.1. February 2017.

Moore, David H. “Constitutional Commitment to International Law Compliance.” Virginia Law Review. Vol. 102. April 2016

Paulson, Stanley L. “Constitutional Review in the United States and Austria: Notes on the Beginnings.” Ratio Juris. Vol. 16. No. 2. June 2003.

Pegan, Andreja. “The Role Of Personal Parliamentary Assistants In The European Parliament,” West European Politics. Vol.40. No.2. June 2016.

Poczter, Sharon and Thomas B. Pepinsky. “Authoritarian Legacies in Post–New Order Indonesia: Evidence from a New Dataset.” Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies. Vol. 52. No.1. April 2016.

Rasmussen, Hjalte. “Remedying the Crumbling EC Judicial System.” Common Market Law Review. Vol.37. No.5. June 2000.

Rosenfeld, Michel. “Constitutional Adjudication In Europe And The United States: Paradoxes And Contrasts.” International Journal of Constitutional Law. Vol. 2. No. 2. August 2004.

Sadurski, Wojciech. “Solange, Chapter 3’: Constitutional Courts in Central Europe— Democracy—European Union.” European Law Journal. Vol. 14. No.1. January 2008.

Schor, Miguel. “Judicial Review And American Constitutional Exceptionalism.” Osgoode Hall Law Journal. Vol. 46. No. 3. October 2008.

Schor, Miguel. “Squaring the Circle: Democratizing Judicial Review and the Counter-Constitutional Difficulty.” Minnesota Journal of International Law. Vol. 16. No.1. December 2007.

Steinberger, Helmut. “Historic Influences of American Constitutionalism upon German Constitutional Development: Federalism and Judicial Review.” Columbia Journal of Transnational Law. Vol. 36. 1998.

Strang, Lee J. “Originalism’s Subject Matter: Why the Declaration of Independence Is Not Part of the Constitution.” Southern California Law Review. Vol. 89. No.3. March 2016.

Sweet, Alec Stone. “Why Europe Rejected American Judicial Review: And Why It May Not Matter,” Michigan Law Review, Vol.101. No.201. August 2003.

Tushnet, Mark. “Marbury v. Madison Around the World.” Tennessee Law Review. Vol. 71, No.4, Summer 2003.

Webb, Hoyt. “Constitutional Court of South Africa: Rights Interpretation and Comparative Constitutional Law.” The University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law. Vol. 1. No.2. October 1998.

Books

Avbelj, Matej and Jan KomÃirek, ed. Constitutional Pluralism in the European Union and Beyond. Oxford: Hart Publishing. 2012.

Barnett, Hilaire. Constitutional and Administrative Law. United Kingdom: Cavendish Publishing. 2004. Comella, Victor Ferreres. Constitutional Courts & Democratic Values: A European Perspective. New Haven: Yale University Press. 2009.

Conforti, Benedetto. International Law And The Role Of Domestic Legal Systems. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. 1993.

Devenish, George E. A Commentary on the South African Constitution. United Kingdom: Butterworth-Heinemann. 1998.

Fiss, Owen M. ‘The Right Degree of Independence,’ in Irwin P. Skotzky, ed., Transition to Democracy in Latin America: The Role of the Judiciary. Colorado: Westview Press. 1993.

Forsyth, Christopher, Ed. Judicial Review and the Constitution. Oxford: Hart publishing. 2000.

Galera, Susana, ed., Judicial Review: A Comparative Analysis inside the European Legal System. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. 2010.

Husein, Zainal AM. Judicial Review di Mahkamah Agung RI: Tiga Dekade Pengujian Peraturan Perundang-Undangan. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers. 2009.

Joubert, Willem Adolf and T. Johan Scott. The Law of South Africa. United Kingdom: Butterworths, 1981.

Jowell, Jeffrey. “The rule of Law and its Underlying Values,” in The Changing Constitution, Oxford University Press. 2007.

Kelsen, Hans. General Theory of Law and State, New York: Russell & Russell. 1961.

Keyaerts, David. ’Courts as Regulatory Watchdogs. Does the European Court of Justice Bark or Bite?’ in Patricia Popelier, Armen Mazmanyan, and Werner Vandenbruwaene, ed. The Role of Constitutional Courts in Multilevel Governance. Cambridge: Intersentia. 2013.

Klug, Heinz. Constituting Democracy: Law, Globalism and South Africa’s Political Reconstruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2000.

_____. The Constitution of South Africa: A Contextual Analysis. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2010.

Koopmans, Tim. Courts and Political Institutions, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2003.

Landfreid, Christine. “The Selection Process of Constitutional Court Judges in Germany” in Kate Malleson & Peter H. Russell, eds. Appointing Judges in an Age of Judicial Power: Critical Perspectives from around the World. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 2006.

Licht, Robert A. ed. Is the Supreme Court The Guardian Of The Constitution? United State of America: American Enterprise Institute. Lijphart, Arend. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-six Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press. 2012.

Lutz, Donald S. Principles of Constitutional Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2006.

MacCormick, Neil. Questioning Sovereignty. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2001.

Merryman, John Henry & Rogelio PérezPerdomo. The Civil Law Tradition: An Introduction to the Legal Systems of Europe and Latin America. California: Stanford University Press. 2007.

Merwe, C. G. Van der and J. E. Du Plessis. Introduction to the Law of South Africa. New York: Kluwer Law International. 2004

Oliver, Dawn. Constitutional Reform in the UK. Oxford: Oxford University Press.2003.

Pilkington, Colin. The Politics Today Companion to the British Constitution. Manchester: Manchester University Press. 1999.

Pollicino, Oreste. ‘The Italian Constitutional Court and the European Court of Justice: a Progressive Overlapping between the Supranational and the Domestic Dimensions,’ in Monica Claes, Maartje de Visser, Patricia Popelier and Catherine Van de Heyning, ed. Constitutional Conversations in Europe-Actors, Topics and Procedures. Cambridge: Intersentia. 2012.

Porsdam, Helle. From Civil to Human Rights: Dialogues on Law and Humanities in the United States and Europe. United Kingdom: Edward Elgar Publishing. 2009.

Shaw, Josephine and Marise Cremona. Law of the European Union. United Kingdom: Macmillan. 1996.

Steinberger, Helmut. American Constitutionalism and German Constitutional Development. New York: Columbia University Press. 1990.

Stone, Alec. The Birth of Judicial Politics in France: The Constitutional Council in Comparative Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1992.

Sweet, Alec Stone. Governing with Judges: Constitutional Politics in Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2000.

Tams, Christian J. Enforcing Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2005.

Tate, C. Neal and Torbjörn Vallinder, ed. The Global Expansion of Judicial Power. New York: New York University Press. 1997.

Weiler, Joseph. H. H. ‘Epilogue: The Judicial Après Nice’, in G. de Burca and J. H. H. Weiler, Ed., The European Court of Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2001.

Zakaria, Fareed. The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad. New York: W.W. Norton. 2003.

Online

Cartabia, Marta. “Taking Dialogue Seriously” The Renewed Need for a Judicial Dialogue at the Time of Constitutional Activism in the European Union. No. 12. Jean Monnet Chair, 2007, http://www.jeanmonnetprogram. org/papers/07/071201.html. Diakses 26 Februari 2015.

“Stare Decisis”, http: //www.law.cornell.edu/ wex/stare_decisis. Diakses 26 Februari 2015.

“Ex post Facto Law”, http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law. Diakses 27 Februari 2015.

“Ex-ante”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exante. Diakses 27 Februari 2015.

“Treaty on European Union (Nice consolidated version)”, http://eur lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12002 M035. Diakses 10 Juni 2017.

“Treaty establishing the European Community”, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/ LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:12002E234: EN:HTML. Diakses 10 Juni 2017.

“Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1”, http://presspubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a3_2_1. html. Diakses 10 Juni 2017.

“Report of the Group of Wise Persons to the Committee of Ministers”, https://wcd.coe. int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1063779. Diakses 25 Februari 2015.

“Judgment of the Court of Justice, Simmenthal, Case 106/77 (9 March 1978)”, www.cvce.eu/obj/judgment_of_the_court_ of_justice_simmenthal_case_106_77_9_ march_1978-en-82c8d76f-b272-4e8f99e1-7940acbbc090.html. Diakses 10 Juni 2017

“Wantimpres. Dewan Pertimbangan Presiden”, http://www.wantimpres.go.id/Beranda/ tabid/36/Default.aspx. Diakses 30 Juni 2015.

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.