Form Review and Judicial Independence: A Comparative Perspective
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31078/consrev1023Keywords:
Judicial Review, Strong-Form Review, The Indonesian Constitutional Court, Weak-Form ReviewAbstract
This article examines the Court’s judicial review power that has gradually shifted from a strong-form review into a weak-form review. The shifting into weak-form review may affect judicial independence, both de facto or de jure, because Justices have considered the Legislature’s responds on the Court’s decisions. This approach diminishes the Court’s supremacy toward lawmakers. This article explores comparative insights from various countries that utilize those reviews, notably the United States of America (strong review), and commonwealth countries (weak review). It also elaborates on some ‘anomalies’ from both reviews. It raises two important questions: what insights can be learned from other countries’ judicial practices, particularly on the use of weak- form review? And, does weak-form review suitable to be enforced in Indonesia’s context? The weak review that is manifested in conditional decisions claims to be more politically palatable. Despite that strategic reason, the practice of conditional decision is prone to misuse as it could decrease constitutionalism and judicial independence. This paper argues that the weak-form review is not suitable for Indonesia’s constitutional law context, because the country lacks prerequisites and preconditions of strong control through parliament. The Indonesian Constitutional Court must return to its genuine authority as a strong-form review to strengthen legal constitutionalism.
References
Austin, John. The Province of Jurisprudence Determined. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1954.
Banakar, Reza, and Max Travers. Theory and Methods in Socio-Legal Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Barak, Aharon. The Judge in a Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006.
Barkow, Rachel E. “More Supreme than Court? The Fall of the Political Question Doctrine and the Rise of Judicial Supremacy.” Columbia Law Review 102, no. 2 (March 2002): 237–336. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1123711.
Bedner, Adriaan, and Barbara Oomen, editors. Real Legal Certainty and Its Relevance: Essays in Honour of Jan Michiel Otto. Leiden: Leiden University Press, 2018.
Bernstein, David. Rehabilitating Lochner: Defending Individual Rights Against Progressive Reform. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011.
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
Calabresi, Steven G. The History and Growth of Judicial Review, Volume 2: The Divergence of National Experiences. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021.
Constitutional Court of Indonesia. Decision No. 013/PUU-I/2003 (Judicial Review of Criminal Code) (2003).
Constitutional Court of Indonesia. Decision No. 54/PUU-VI/2008 (Judicial Review of Excise Law) (2008).
Constitutional Court of Indonesia. Decision No. 101/PUU-VII/2009 (Judicial Review of Advocate Law) (2009).
Constitutional Court of Indonesia. Decision No. 19/PUU-VII/2010 (Judicial Review of Health Law) (2010).
Constitutional Court of Indonesia. Decision No. 91/PUU-XVIII/2020 (Judicial Review of Job Creation Omnibus Law) (2020).
Delaney, Erin F., and Rosalind Dixon, editors. Comparative Judicial Review. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2018.
Elliott, Mark. Parliamentary Sovereignty and the New Constitutional Order: Legislative Freedom, Political Reality and Convention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018.
Eylon, Yuval, and Alon Harel. “The Right to Judicial Review.” Virginia Law Review 92, no. 5 (August 2006): 991–1022. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4135150.
Fuller, Lon L. “Positivism and Fidelity to Law—a Reply to Professor Hart.” Harvard Law Review 71, no. 4 (February 1958): 630–672. https://doi.org/10.2307/1338226.
Gardbaum, Stephen. “The New Commonwealth Model of Constitutionalism.” American Journal of Comparative Law 49, no. 4 (Autumn 2001): 707–760. https://doi.org/10.2307/840892.
Gillman, Howard. The Constitution Besieged: The Rise and Demise of Lochner Era Police Powers. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1992.
Ginsburg, Tom, Aziz Z. Huq, and Mila Versteeg. “The Coming Demise of Liberal Constitutionalism?” University of Chicago Law Review 85, no. 2 (2018): 239–255. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclrev/vol85/iss2/12.
Glendon, Mary Ann, Paolo G. Carozza, and Colin B. Picker. Comparative Legal Traditions: Text, Materials and Cases on Western Law. 3rd ed. St. Paul, MN: Thomson West, 2008.
Haines, Charles G. The American Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1914.
Harel, Alon, and Tsvi Kahana. “The Easy Core Case for Judicial Review.” Journal of Legal Analysis 2, no. 1 (April 2010): 227–256. https://doi.org/10.1093/jla/2.1.227.
Hendrianto, Stefanus. Law and Politics of Constitutional Court of Indonesia and the Search for Judicial Heroes. London: Routledge, 2018.
Hofstadter, Richard, editor. Great Issues in American History: From the Revolution to the Civil War, 1765–1865. New York: Vintage Books, 1958.
Jacobi, Tonja, and Patrick Leslie. “Judicial Review as a Self-Stabilizing Constitutional Mechanism.” In Comparative Judicial Review, edited by Erin
F. Delaney and Rosalind Dixon, 203–225. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2018.
Kahn-Freund, Otto. “On Uses and Misuses of Comparative Law.” Modern Law Review 37, no. 1 (January 1974): 1–27. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1094713.
Kelsen, Hans. General Theory of Law and State. Translated by Anders Wedberg. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1945.
Kelsen, Hans. Pure Theory of Law. Translated by Max Knight. Clark, NJ: The Lawbook Exchange, 2005.
Kibet, Eric, and Charles Fombad. “Transformative Constitutionalism and the Adjudication of Constitutional Rights in Africa.” African Human Rights Law Journal 17, no. 2 (2017): 340–366. https://doi.org/10.17159/1996-2096/2017/v17n2a1.
Kirby, Michael. “Value Judgments: The Ethics of Law.” Reform 72 (1998): 28–35. https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ALRCRefJl/1998/37.pdf.
Kramer, Larry D. The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Landau, David. “Courts and Support Structures: Beyond the Classic Narrative.” In Comparative Judicial Review, edited by Erin F. Delaney and Rosalind Dixon, 226–243. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2018.
New Zealand. New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Accessed July 10, 2023. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM224792.html.
Nolte, Georg, and Peter Radler. “Judicial Review in Germany.” European Public Law 1, no. 1 (1995): 57–74. https://doi.org/10.54648/EURO1995007.
Nourse, Victoria F. “A Tale of Two Lochners: The Untold History of Substantive Due Process and the Idea of Fundamental Rights.” California Law Review 97, no. 3 (June 2009): 751–805. https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38T14S.
Petersen, Niels. “The German Constitutional Court and Legislative Capture.” International Journal of Constitutional Law 12, no. 3 (July 2014): 695–713. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mou040.
Rahman, Faiz. “Anomali Penerapan Klausula Bersyarat dalam Putusan Pengujian Perundang-undangan terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar [Anomaly of Conditional Decisions of Judicial Review].” Jurnal Konstitusi 17, no. 1 (2020): 57–80. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1712.
Redish, Martin H. Judicial Independence and the American Constitution: A Democratic Paradox. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2017.
Roux, Theunis. “Losing Faith in Law’s Authority.” In Comparative Judicial Review, edited by Erin F. Delaney and Rosalind Dixon, 57–77. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2018.
Shapiro, Martin, and Alec Stone Sweet. On Law, Politics, and Judicialization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Shetreet, Shimon. “Judicial Independence: New Conceptual Dimensions and Contemporary Challenges.” In Judicial Independence: The Contemporary Debate, edited by Shimon Shetreet and Jules Deschênes, 590–620. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1985.
Tushnet, Mark. Weak Courts, Strong Rights: Judicial Review and Social Welfare Rights. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008.
Tushnet, Mark. “Alternative Forms of Judicial Review.” Michigan Law Review 101, no. 8 (August 2003): 2781–2802. https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol101/iss8/9.
Tushnet, Mark. “New Forms of Judicial Review and the Persistence of Rights- and Democracy-Based Worries.” Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works, no. 247 (2003). https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/247.
Tushnet, Mark. “Social Welfare Rights and the Forms of Judicial Review.” Texas Law Review 82, no. 7 (June 2004): 1895–1926.
Tushnet, Mark. “The Relationship between Political Constitutionalism and Weak-Form Judicial Review.” German Law Journal 14, no. 12 (2013): 2249–2261. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2071832200002753.
Weidemann, Lilly. “Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review in Germany.” In Judicial Review of Administration in Europe, edited by
Giacinto della Cananea and Mads Andenas. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021.
Whittington, Keith E. “Sober Second Thoughts: Evaluating the History of Horizontal Judicial Review by the U.S. Supreme Court.” University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 14, no. 2 (2011): 515–557.
Wolfe, Christopher. The Rise of Modern Judicial Review: From Constitutional Interpretation to Judge-Made Law. New York: Basic Books, 1986.
Zweigert, Konrad, and Hein Kötz. An Introduction to Comparative Law. Translated by Tony Weir. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
