M. Abyan Mufid
University of Leeds

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

Constitutional Court Decisions in Judicial Review of Laws Against the 1945 Constitution (2024–2025) Irmanjaya Thaher; M. Abyan Mufid; Mariani Wiwik
Hakamain: Journal of Sharia and Law Studies Vol. 3 No. 2 (2024): HAKAMAIN: Journal of Sharia and Law Studies
Publisher : Yayasan Lembaga Studi Makwa

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.57255/hakamain.v3i2.1758

Abstract

This article examines the development of constitutional adjudication in Indonesia through an analysis of the Constitutional Court’s judicial review decisions issued during the 2024–2025 period. It focuses on four significant rulings: Constitutional Court Decision No. 144/PUU-XXIII/2025 concerning the State Treasury Law, Constitutional Court Decision No. 62/PUU-XXII/2024 concerning the State Treasury Law, Constitutional Court Decision No. 105/PUU-XXII/2024 concerning the Information and Electronic Transactions Law, and Constitutional Court Decision No. 16/PUU-XXI/2023 concerning the National Capital City Law. Using a normative legal research method supported by statutory, conceptual, and case approaches, the study evaluates the legal reasoning adopted by the Court in determining the constitutionality of statutory provisions. Particular attention is given to the petitioners’ legal standing, the interpretation of constitutional norms, the substance of judicial review, and the role of majority and dissenting opinions in shaping constitutional jurisprudence. The analysis demonstrates that these decisions reflect an evolving constitutional framework in which the Constitutional Court increasingly functions as the guardian of constitutional supremacy and the protector of fundamental rights. The rulings also illustrate the Court’s effort to balance legal certainty, democratic governance, and public accountability while responding to contemporary constitutional challenges. Furthermore, dissenting opinions enrich constitutional discourse by offering alternative interpretations that may influence future judicial developments and legislative reform. Overall, the examined decisions indicate a continuing maturation of Indonesia’s constitutional system through more comprehensive constitutional reasoning, greater protection of citizens’ constitutional rights, and the reinforcement of judicial professionalism, transparency, and institutional legitimacy in exercising the power of constitutional review.
The Supreme Court as the Guardian of Legality: The Coherence of Judicial Review of Electoral and Presidential Regulations Irmanjaya Thaher; Annisa Fitria; M. Abyan Mufid
Hakamain: Journal of Sharia and Law Studies Vol. 3 No. 2 (2024): HAKAMAIN: Journal of Sharia and Law Studies
Publisher : Yayasan Lembaga Studi Makwa

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.57255/hakamain.v3i2.1774

Abstract

This study examines the Supreme Court’s role as the guardian of legality by evaluating the coherence of judicial review concerning electoral regulations and presidential regulations within Indonesia’s constitutional system. The research focuses on whether the Supreme Court has consistently applied legal principles in reviewing subordinate legislation to ensure conformity with statutory norms, constitutional values, and the rule of law. This study employs a normative legal research method using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. Primary legal materials consist of the 1945 Constitution, legislation governing judicial power and lawmaking, Supreme Court decisions, Constitutional Court jurisprudence, and scholarly literature on judicial review and constitutional governance. The findings reveal that although the Supreme Court exercises constitutional authority to review regulations below statutes, inconsistencies remain in judicial interpretation of electoral regulations and presidential regulations, particularly where administrative discretion intersects with democratic governance and constitutional rights. Variations in legal reasoning have contributed to uncertainty regarding the hierarchy of legislation and the uniform application of legal principles. The study further finds that limited harmonization between the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court has weakened the coherence of judicial review and occasionally produced conflicting legal interpretations. To address these challenges, the research argues for the development of consistent interpretative standards, stronger institutional coordination, and greater transparency in judicial reasoning. Harmonizing review procedures and reinforcing the Supreme Court’s constitutional function would enhance legal certainty, strengthen democratic accountability, and preserve the supremacy of the Constitution. Ultimately, coherent judicial review is indispensable for ensuring that electoral regulations and presidential regulations remain consistent with statutory authority, constitutional principles, and the fundamental requirements of a democratic state governed by the rule of law.