The Political Context of Judicial Review in Indonesia

Indonesia Constitutional Court will celebrate 12th birthday this August 2015, and it cannot be denied that the Court play significant role in securing democracy in Indonesia. In exercising their authorities, including the election result dispute and judicial review, the Court continue to affirm institutional judicial legitimacy and pursue their role to guard 1945 Constitution and continue to do so. The first Chief Justice Jimly showed how within five years of the Court's creation, he could strategically maximise its momentum and build up the Court as a respectful institution. The Chief Justice Mahfud MD was then elected to reduce the judicial activism started by Jimly's bench. However, against promises and expectations, Mahfud MD brought the Court to a level far beyond the imagination of the Constitution drafters. Parliament and President tried to limit Court's authority, not ones, and the Court able to overcome those constrain. Current various available studies observed only how the Court issued their decision and solely focus to the impact of the decision. Scholars slightly ignore that study about the Court, by reducing other constitutional actor in Indonesia, produce study about the Court itself isn't complete. In fact, political environment in which the Court operated at that time is one of utmost importance the strengthen of the Court institutional legitimacy. This paper is trying to discover the rise of the Indonesia Constitutional Court, not from what the Court did, but from political environment outside the court. Political parties realize that the Court is the only institution that act as political dispute resolution among them. Political parties maturity and political constraint are the key factor that support the development of the Court's institutional power

Indonesia Constitutional Court Constitutional Interpretation Methodology (2003-2008)

Nine Indonesian Constitutional Justices have the authority to annul a law drafted by 550 Parliament members and the President. The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia (“the Court”), particularly in deciding cases of judicial review, has the capability to declare words, sentences, paragraphs, articles or the law unconstitutional. Consequently, it is essential for the Court to take into account legal arguments. The fundamental element of these legal arguments is constitutional interpretation, which serves as a parameter in determining constitutionality of the laws. However, in exercising its authority, the Court needs to interpret the Constitution as a basis for deciding a case. The standards for determining the constitutionality of a law must be the text of the Constitution, not what the judges would prefer the Constitution to mean. Constitutional supremacy necessarily assumes that a superior rule is what the Constitution says it is, not what the judges prefer it to be. [Craig R. Ducat: E3]. The Court period 2003–2008 were the Court\u27s the formative years, and as such are important to understand the methodology and interpretative approaches adopted by the Court. Many observers of the Court\u27s early decisions are still unsure of the overarching approach and methodology adopted by the Court. Thus, there is a need for a close analysis and criticism of the Court\u27s early decisions to determine which methods and approaches it has adopted and whether these are appropriate in the Indonesian context. The Court has openly referred to the experiences of foreign jurisdiction in constitutional law, and therefore it would be appropriate to analyze the court\u27s decisions in a broader comparative context of constitutional interpretative approaches from around the world