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 article examines the authority of the Supreme Court (MA) of the Republic of Indonesia in exercising the right to judicial review of regulations under the law. The study covers the constitutional and normative foundations of this authority, the demarcation of authority between the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court (MK) within a multi-tiered system of judicial review, the procedural law governing judicial review as stipulated in PERMA No. 1 of 2011, as well as two landmark cases: first, Supreme Court Decision No. 23 P/HUM/2024, which declared that Article 4(1)(d) of PKPU No. 9 of 2020 was inconsistent with Article 7(2)(e) of Law No. 10 of 2016 on Regional Head Elections in the context of age requirements for regional head candidacy; second, a petition for judicial review filed by a citizen challenging several articles in Presidential Regulation No. 82 of 2024 on the Presidential Communications Office (KKP). This article analyzes the constitutional, jurisprudential, and practical implications of these two cases and evaluates the effectiveness of the Supreme Court as the guardian of legality within Indonesia’s legal system.