Sejarah Mahkamah Konstitusi (2)

Summary

This video script explores the evolution of judicial review in Indonesia, focusing on its historical development and the eventual establishment of the Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi). Initially rejected during the formation of the 1945 Constitution, the idea of judicial review resurfaced after Indonesia’s 1998-2002 constitutional reforms, leading to a new system of checks and balances. The Constitutional Court was created to review laws, settle inter-governmental disputes, handle electoral conflicts, and oversee impeachment processes. The reform marked a shift from a power division system to a more modern separation of powers, ensuring the Constitution is actively upheld in practice.

Takeaways

• 😀 Judicial review in Indonesia has a long history, with legal scholars proposing it as early as the 1940s.
• 😀 Muhammad Yamin proposed granting the Supreme Court the power to conduct judicial review of laws, particularly concerning the Constitution, Islamic law, and customary law.
• 😀 Supomo, a key figure, rejected Muhammad Yamin's proposal, citing concerns about the timing and the readiness of the legal system to implement judicial review.
• 😀 Supomo's rejection was based on the belief that the 1945 Constitution’s design did not support judicial review, as the system was rooted in power division rather than separation of powers.
• 😀 The system of power division meant that no institution had the authority to invalidate another’s decisions, thus preventing judicial review.
• 😀 After Indonesia’s Reformasi (Reformation) period, a new constitutional framework emerged, supporting a system of separation of powers and checks and balances.
• 😀 The post-reform constitution allowed for judicial review and the establishment of the Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi).
• 😀 The Constitutional Court was given the authority to review laws against the Constitution, resolve disputes between state institutions, and handle election-related issues.
• 😀 The idea of judicial review was no longer rejected after Reformasi, as the new political system required mechanisms for institutions to check each other’s powers.
• 😀 The Mahkamah Konstitusi plays a crucial role in maintaining the integrity of the Constitution by ensuring its application in practice, rather than just being an abstract document.

Q & A

What is the historical origin of the idea of judicial review in Indonesia?

The idea of judicial review in Indonesia dates back to the 1940s. Legal scholars, such as Muhammad Yamin, proposed that the Supreme Court (then called 'Balai Agung') be granted the authority to conduct judicial reviews over laws, the Constitution, Islamic law, and customary law. However, these proposals were rejected at the time due to the political and legal context of the era.

Why was the idea of judicial review rejected in the early years of Indonesia's independence?

The idea of judicial review was rejected primarily by Supomo, who argued that the legal and political system of the 1945 Constitution did not support such a mechanism. Supomo believed the system was based on a division of powers rather than a separation of powers, and judicial review would disrupt this system.

What was Muhammad Yamin's proposal regarding judicial review?

Muhammad Yamin proposed that the Supreme Court be empowered to review laws not only in relation to the Constitution but also with respect to Islamic law and customary law. His proposal was rejected because it was seen as too expansive and complex for the time.

What was Supomo's argument against judicial review?

Supomo's argument was twofold. First, he believed that Indonesia's legal system was not ready for judicial review due to the lack of legal scholars. Second, he argued that the 1945 Constitution's principle of dividing powers did not align with the concept of judicial review, as it would create a conflict between the executive, legislature, and judiciary.

How did Indonesia's political system change after the reform period in 1998, and how did it impact judicial review?

After the 1998 reform period, Indonesia adopted a new political system based on the separation of powers with checks and balances. This shift allowed for the implementation of judicial review, and the establishment of the Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) was part of this transformation.

What are the main functions of the Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) in Indonesia?

The Constitutional Court in Indonesia has several key functions: it reviews the constitutionality of laws, resolves disputes between state institutions, adjudicates election result disputes, decides on the dissolution of political parties, and handles presidential impeachment cases.

What was the role of the Constitutional Court in ensuring the application of the Constitution?

The Constitutional Court plays a critical role in ensuring the Constitution is not merely an abstract document but is actively applied in practice. It serves as a specialized body to uphold constitutional norms, distinct from the Supreme Court, which handles broader legal matters.

How did Indonesia's approach to the judicial review process change after the reform period?

After the reform period, Indonesia embraced the concept of judicial review as a formal part of the legal system. The Constitutional Court was created specifically to oversee this function, marking a significant shift from the earlier rejection of judicial review based on the 1945 Constitution.

Why was the creation of the Constitutional Court significant for Indonesia's legal and political system?

The creation of the Constitutional Court was significant because it marked the formalization of judicial review within the legal system, reflecting a broader shift towards a separation of powers and a system of checks and balances. This was in contrast to the previous system, which rejected such a mechanism.

How did the formation of the Constitutional Court relate to the shift from a system of 'division of powers' to a 'separation of powers'?

The formation of the Constitutional Court was a result of the shift from a system of 'division of powers' under the 1945 Constitution to a 'separation of powers' system after the reforms. This change allowed for judicial review and the establishment of the Court as a neutral body capable of overseeing disputes between state institutions.