Yamin vs Soepomo : Cikal Bakal Judicial Review di Indonesia

Summary

The video discusses the historical origins of judicial review in Indonesia, focusing on a debate before independence between two legal scholars, Mohammad Yamin and Soepomo. Yamin proposed that the judiciary, specifically the 'Balai Agung,' should have the authority to review laws based on the Constitution, customary law, and Islamic law. Soepomo opposed this, arguing that Indonesia's legal system focused on 'Distribution of Powers' rather than strict separation of powers. Despite their differing views, the debate ended without a conclusion. The video reflects on how these historical discussions influenced the current system of judicial review in Indonesia.

Takeaways

• 😀 Judicial review in Indonesia involves testing the constitutionality of laws, as outlined in Article 24C of the 1945 Constitution.
• 😀 The concept of judicial review was discussed in Indonesia before independence, during the preparation phase under the BPUPKI.
• 😀 Professor Mohammad Yamin proposed that the Supreme Court (Mahkamah Agung) should have the authority to review laws.
• 😀 Yamin argued that laws could be tested using three criteria: Constitutionality, customary law, and Islamic law.
• 😀 Professor Soepomo opposed the idea of judicial review, believing Indonesia's system was based on 'distribution of powers' rather than strict 'separation of powers'.
• 😀 Soepomo also argued that judges' roles were to apply laws, not to invalidate or review them.
• 😀 Soepomo believed Indonesia did not have enough legal experts at the time to implement judicial review effectively.
• 😀 There was no conclusion in the debate between Yamin and Soepomo, as Yamin's proposal was eventually postponed during a BPUPKI session.
• 😀 Soepomo’s concerns highlighted the lack of legal experts and readiness to adopt judicial review in a young nation like Indonesia.
• 😀 Despite Soepomo's arguments, the Indonesian legal system incorporated mechanisms for judicial review later on, through the Constitutional Court and Supreme Court.

Q & A

What is judicial review, and how is it related to the Indonesian legal system?

Judicial review is the process of testing laws against the constitution to ensure they are in compliance with it. In the Indonesian legal system, it involves evaluating whether laws adhere to the 1945 Constitution, customary law (adat), and Islamic law. This concept has become a key feature of Indonesia's Constitutional Court system.

Who were the key figures involved in the historical debate on judicial review in Indonesia?

The two key figures were Professor Mohammad Yamin, who supported judicial review, and Professor Dr. Mr. Soepomo, who opposed it. Both were members of BPUPKI, the body that worked on Indonesia's independence preparation.

What was Mohammad Yamin's proposal regarding judicial review?

Mohammad Yamin proposed that the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court (Balai Agung), should have the power to review laws. He suggested that laws be tested against three criteria: the Constitution, recognized customary law (adat), and Islamic Sharia law.

Why did Soepomo oppose the idea of judicial review?

Soepomo opposed judicial review because he believed Indonesia's system was based on a distribution of powers, not a strict separation of powers. He argued that judicial review was suited for countries with a clear separation of powers and that judges should focus on applying laws, not reviewing their constitutionality.

What is the difference between 'separation of powers' and 'distribution of powers' as discussed by Soepomo?

Separation of powers refers to a clear division of authority between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, whereas distribution of powers involves a more integrated approach where the functions of these branches are intertwined. Soepomo believed Indonesia followed the latter model, not requiring judicial review.

What concerns did Soepomo raise about Indonesia's readiness for judicial review?

Soepomo expressed concerns about the lack of qualified legal experts in Indonesia to handle judicial review. He argued that the country was not yet prepared to implement such a mechanism due to the limited legal expertise available at the time.

How did the debate between Yamin and Soepomo end?

The debate did not lead to a clear resolution. Yamin's proposal for judicial review was postponed, and there was no immediate consensus between the two views. The issue was left unresolved during the BPUPKI discussions.

How did the judicial review concept evolve in Indonesia after the independence period?

After independence, judicial review eventually became a formal part of Indonesia's legal system, particularly through the establishment of the Constitutional Court. This development reflected the ongoing evolution of Indonesia's legal thinking, influenced by the earlier debates between Yamin and Soepomo.

What role did the Constitutional Court play in implementing judicial review in Indonesia?

The Constitutional Court was established to handle the process of judicial review in Indonesia, ensuring that laws and regulations are in line with the Constitution. This marked the formalization of the judicial review mechanism that was discussed before independence.

What broader implications did the debate between Yamin and Soepomo have on Indonesia's legal and political system?

The debate highlighted the tension between the ideas of constitutionalism, the role of the judiciary, and the balance of powers in Indonesia's emerging legal system. Their differing views laid the groundwork for later discussions on judicial review and the structure of Indonesia's legal and political institutions.