<![CDATA[Abstract: This normative legal research examines the structural challenges of judicial review over executive emergency powers by comparing Canada’s Emergencies Act of 1988 and Indonesia’s Government Regulations instead of Laws (Perppu) under Article 22 of the 1945 Constitution. The analysis reveals that Canadian federal courts apply a rigorous reasonableness standard based on strict intelligence thresholds, effectively maintaining constitutional boundaries and providing retroactive remedial relief. Conversely, the Constitutional Court’s judicialization of emergency powers in Indonesia suffers from systemic paralysis. This weakness stems from the strict application of the mootness doctrine when a Perppu is rapidly enacted into law, paired with the prospective nature of the Court’s rulings, which leaves a remedial vacuum for human rights violations. Ultimately, this study argues that Indonesia must reform its procedural framework by decoupling judicial timelines from legislative ratification and introducing interim measures to prevent the normalisation of executive exceptionalism. Keywords: Judicial Review, Emergency Powers, Perppu, Emergencies Act, Comparative Law]]>
Copyrights © 2026
