<![CDATA[Every democratic constitutional state recognizes the existence of emergency law as an extraordinary legal instrument. Indonesia and the Philippines, though sharing a presidential system and authoritarian historical backgrounds in Southeast Asia, have adopted fundamentally different approaches in regulating the state of emergency within their constitutional frameworks. Indonesia's Article 12 of the 1945 Constitution contains only two delegative sentences, leaving substantive regulation to legislation, whereas the Philippines constitutionalises emergency law comprehensively under Article VII Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution. The gap in the literature lies in the lack of studies that position the Philippines as Indonesia's comparative counterpart, as well as the lack of a holistic examination of how differences in regulatory levels shape the overall character of emergency law regimes in both countries. This study analyses and compares the regulation of the state of emergency in both constitutions in terms of constitutionalisation, legislative oversight mechanisms, and judicial review. Using normative juridical research with statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches, this study finds that Indonesia's emergency law regime is normatively under-specified and institutionally fragile, lacking constitutional temporal limits, explicit legislative oversight, and judicial review of emergency proclamations. The Philippines, by contrast, establishes three layers of constitutional control: a sixty-day temporal limit, Congressional supremacy for extensions, and mandatory judicial review of the factual basis for proclamations. This study concludes that Indonesia requires fundamental reform by elevating essential norms temporal limits, parliamentary oversight, and judicial review to the constitutional level, in accordance with democratic rule of law principles post-amendment. Keywords: State of Emergency, Constitutionalisation, Legislative Oversight, Judicial Review, Comparative Studies]]>
