Convergence or Borrowing: Standing in The Indonesian Constitutional Court

Abstract

This Article addresses the constitutional convergence theory by examining the standing rule in the Indonesian Constitutional Court. The central investigation of this paper is whether the application of standing doctrine in the Indonesian Constitutional Court is evidence of constitutional convergence or of borrowing? This paper argues that the Constitutional Court jurisprudence on standing indicates that constitutional convergence has never taken place but rather the Court has engaged in constitutional borrowing. Legal borrowing on standing is limited to the carbon copy of the ve prong standing tests of the U.S. model, but in reality standing doctrine in the Indonesian Constitutional Court is not based on the private rights model of adjudication. Although the Court allows individuals to bring cases before the Court, it is rather a uasi public model of standing, in which claimants no longer have standing only to vindicate their own private rights but can also sue to vindicate public interests. Standing requirements also allow the judges to review many highly sensitive political cases, and to some extent it enables the Court to second guess the decisions of the di erent branches of government.

Mahkamah Konstitusi Post Judicial Review of the 11/2020 Job Creation Law: Toward Politization of Judiciary?

“…The 1999-2002 constitutional amendments inserted a new separate special court namely the constitutional court. [6] This new court is intended to guard the constitution and protect human rights. This is in line with the general tendency worldwide where judicial mechanism is used to settle political disputes.…”

“…The Court did not have its own building, it did not have adequate staff. [6] Yet the Court showed it strong commitment to protect both the constitution and the human rights. Such commitment can be seen how the Court was dealing with many important laws.…”

“…Professor Jimly Asshidique the first chief Justice of Constitutional Court brought the Court into a functioning one. [6] The Court rulings during the first generation of the constitutional court justices provided many academic discussion including theories and concept relevant to constitutional law. [7] Part II will analyze the performance of the second generation of the constitutional court justices.…”

A Proposal to Adopt Concrete Judicial Review in Indonesian Constitutional Court: A Study on the German Federal Constitutional Court Experiences

“…46 The same argument from Hamdan Zoelva and Stefanus Hendrianto ''concrete review explicitly is not included in one of the powers of the Indonesian Constitutional Court which are determined limited by the 1945 Constitution". 47 The Constitutional Court Decision Number 013-022/PUU-IV/2006 confirmed that it does not have concrete review authority. The absence of an institution that has the authority to resolve the issue of constitutional inquiry mechanisms in the legal system in Indonesia causes a void of constitutional protection for citizens, especially for those who are involved in the litigation process in court.…”