<![CDATA[This study aims to analyze the role of Constitutional Court decisions in achieving synchronization of the criminal justice system in Indonesia from the perspective of criminal law policy and to compare it with judicial review practices in Malaysia. The methods used include normative legal research employing statutory, conceptual, and case-based approaches. The results of the study indicate that Constitutional Court decisions have evolved into an instrument for reforming criminal law policy to limit excessive criminalization, strengthen the protection of constitutional rights, and promote the harmonization of the criminal justice system. The Constitutional Court’s rulings have not been fully implemented due to a lack of harmony in jurisdiction between the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court regarding the enforcement of rulings related to the review of criminal cases. The Federal Court of Malaysia applies the doctrine of horizontal stare decisis flexibly while upholding the federal constitution as the supreme law; thus, precedents may be set aside if they conflict with constitutional principles.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
