<![CDATA[This article examines the institutional design and practical operation of judicial review in ASEAN through a comparative analysis of Indonesia and Vietnam. It analyzes how constitutional supremacy is operationalized within distinct constitutional frameworks and assesses the structural implications of judicialized and political models of constitutional protection. Using a qualitative legal-comparative and contextual methodology, the study examines constitutional provisions, statutory arrangements, and selected jurisprudence of Indonesia's Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi), while situating Vietnam's framework within broader debates on political constitutionalism and socialist constitutional systems. The findings indicate that Indonesia represents a relatively strong form of judicialized constitutionalism, characterized by concentrated constitutional jurisdiction, the development of remedial techniques, and active engagement in politically sensitive disputes, particularly electoral and institutional conflicts. In contrast, Vietnam maintains a dispersed, predominantly political model of constitutional supervision in which constitutional supremacy is normatively affirmed but not judicialized. The comparison suggests that the principal distinction between the two systems lies not in the formal recognition of constitutional supremacy, but in the institutional mechanisms available to enforce it. This article contributes to comparative constitutional scholarship by developing an ASEAN-centered comparative framework and identifying context-sensitive institutional lessons from Indonesia for constitutional reform in Vietnam. The article concludes that selective, incremental reforms enhance judicial protection of constitutional rights in Vietnam while remaining attentive to domestic political and structural conditions.]]>
