DOI: https://doi.org/10.14710/lr.v19i1.54087

The Indonesian Constitutional Court Approaches the Proportionality Principle to the Cases Involving Competing Rights

*Tanto Lailam orcid scopus  -  Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta ; Faculty of Law, Universität zu Köln, Germany
Putri Anggia  -  Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta ; Faculty of Law, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain
Open Access Copyright 2023 LAW REFORM under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0.

Citation Format:
Abstract

The research focuses on the proportionality analysis of the competing socio-economic rights in the Indonesian Constitutional Court / Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia (the MKRI). It is motivated by the unclear concept/model of proportionality analysis in Indonesia and its application by the court. The research method used was normative legal research with statutory and case approaches. The MKRI's general practices need to be more structured, unsystematized, and uncomprehensive to implement with four stages: legitimate aims, suitability, necessity, and balancing. It applies a model that refers to the legal objectives based on Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution. It declares the balance of fundamental rights and obligations of citizens based on the values of the godhead, humanity, unity, democracy, and social justice. Hence, some decisions used proportionality analysis, specifically in economic rights. Its implications create a balance of legal norms and integratively value legal certainty, justice, and legal expediency.

Note: This article has supplementary file(s).

Fulltext View|Download |  Research Instrument
Untitled
Subject
Type Research Instrument
  Download (49KB)    Indexing metadata
Keywords: Proportionality Analysis; Constitutional Court; Socio-Economic; Competing Rights

Article Metrics:

Article Info
Section: Research Article
Language : EN
Recent articles
The Entry Selection System in Indonesia’s Public High Schools: Quo vadis The Indonesian Constitutional Court Approaches the Proportionality Principle to the Cases Involving Competing Rights Legal Certainty in Land Rights Acquisition in Indonesia’s National Land Law Application of Universal Jurisdiction Principles to Cross-Country Money Laundering More recent articles
Most cited articles
KEBIJAKAN FORMULASI HUKUM PIDANA DALAM MELINDUNGI TRANSAKSI E - COMMERCE DI INDONESIA GLOBALISASI LESBIAN, GAY, BISEKSUAL, DAN TRANSGENDER (LGBT): PERSPEKTIF HAM DAN AGAMA DALAM LINGKUP HUKUM DI INDONESIA PRIVATISASI BADAN USAHA MILIK NEGARA PENDIDIKAN HUKUM SEBAGAI PENDIDIKAN MANUSIA COUNTER TERRORISM BAGI PELAKU TINDAK PIDANA TERORISME SEBAGAI UPAYA PENANGGULANGAN KEJAHATAN TERORISME DI INDONESIA More cited articles
  1. Alexy, R. (2014). Constitutional Rights and Proportionality. Revus, Vol.22, pp.51–65. https://doi.org/10.4000/revus.2783
  2. Bachmid, Fahri., & Rachmitasari, Diani Indah. (2020). The Supreme Court's Authority: Judicial Review of Statutes and By-Laws of Political Parties against Laws. Law Reform, Vol.18, (No.2),pp.184-204. https://doi.org/10.14710/lr.v18i2.46275
  3. Bisariyadi. (2018a). Legal Transplant and the Model of Constitutional Court Decision. Padjadjaran Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, Vol.5, (No.1), pp.1-23. https://doi.org/10.22304/pjih.v5n1.a1
  4. Bisariyadi. (2018b). Penerapan Uji Proporsionalitas Dalam Kasus Pembubaran Partai Politik: Sebuah Perbandingan. Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan,Vol.48,(No.1),pp.84-109. http://dx.doi.org/10.21143/jhp.vol.48.no.1.1597
  5. Chakim, M. Lutfi. (2020). Freedom of Speech and The Role of Constitutional Courts: The Cases of Indonesia and South Korea. Indonesia Law Review,Vol.10,(No.2),pp.191-205. http://doi.org/10.15742/ilrev.v10n2.605
  6. Enders, C. (2020). Social and Economic Rights in the German Basic Law? An Analysis with Respect to Jurisprudence of the Federal Constitutional Court. Constitutional Review, Vol.6, (No.2), pp.191-209. https://doi.org/10.31078/consrev 621
  7. Faiz, Pan Mohamad. (2016). A Prospect and Challenges for Adopting Constitutional Complaint and Constitutional Question in the Indonesian Constitutional Court. Constitutional Review,Vol.2,(No.1),pp.103-128. https://doi.org/10.31078/consrev215
  8. Grimm, D. (2007). Proportionality in Canadian and German Constitutional Jurisprudence. University of Toronto Law Journal, Vol.57, (No.2),pp.383-397. https://doi.org10.1353/tlj.2007.0014
  9. Hopner, M. (2021). Proportionality in the PSPP Saga: Why Constitutional Pluralism Is Here to Stay and Why the Federal Constitutional Court did not Violate the Rules of Loyal Conduct. European Papers, Vol.6, (No3), pp.1527-1551. https://doi.org/10.15166/2499-8249/537
  10. Lailam, T. (2020). Peran Mahkamah Konstitusi Federal Jerman Dalam Perlindungan Hak Fundamental Warga Negara Berdasarkan Kewenangan Pengaduan Konstitusional. Jurnal HAM, Vol.13, (No.1), pp-65-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.30641/ham.2022.13.65-80
  11. Lailam, Tanto., Anggia, Putri., & Irwansyah. (2022). The Proposal of Constitutional Complaint for the Indonesian Constitutional Court. Jurnal Konstitusi,Vol.19,(No.3),pp.693-719. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1939
  12. Lailam, Tanto., & Andrianti, Nita. (2022). The Constitutional Interpretation of Women's Political Rights. Diponegoro Law Review, Vol. 7,(No.02),pp.173-191. https://doi.org/10.147 10/dilrev.7.2.2022.173-191
  13. Lailam, Tanto., & Andrianti, Nita. (2023). Legal Policy of Constitutional Complaints in Judicial Review: A Comparison of Germany, Austria, Hungary, and Indonesia. Bestuur, Vol.11, (No.1),pp.75-94. https://dx.doi.org/10.20961/ bestuur.v11i1.70052
  14. Laksono, Fajar., Sudarsono, Hidayat, Arief., and Safaat, Muchammad Ali. (2017). Relation between the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia and the Legislators according to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. Constitutional Review, Vol.3,(No.2),pp.141-170. https://doi.org/10.31078/consrev321
  15. Cohen-Eliya, Moshe., & Porat, Iddo. (2010). American Balancing and German Proportionality: The Historical Origins. International Journal of Constitutional Law Vol.8,(No.2),pp.1-32 http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1272763
  16. Omara, A. (2017). Interpreting the Indonesian Constitutional Court’s Approach in Conducting Judicial Review in Cases Related to Economic and Social Rights. Indonesia Law Review Vol.7,(No.2),pp.139-154. http://dx.doi.org/10.15742/ilrev.v7n2.318.2
  17. Omara, A. (2020). Enforcing Nonjusticiable Rights in Indonesia. Constitutional Review, Vol.6, (No.2),pp.311-337. https://doi.org/10.31078/consrev625
  18. Petersen, N. (2014). Proportionality and the Incommensurability Challenge in the Jurisprudence of the South African Constitutional Court. South African Journal on Human Rights, Vol.30, (No.3), pp.405-429. https://doi.org/10.1080/19962126.2014.11865116
  19. Popelier, Patricia., & Van De Heyning, Catherine. (2013). Procedural Rationality: Giving Teeth to the Proportionality Analysis. European Constitutional Law Review Vol.9. pp. 230 – 262. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019612001137
  20. Putra, Satria Rangga., & Sujatmiko. (2022). Reviewing Constitutional Court Decision Number 91/PUU- XVIII/2020 Regarding Formal Review of Job Creation Act: A Progressive Law Perspective. Jurnal Penelitian Hukum De Jure, Vol.22, (No.2), pp.229-241. http://dx.doi.org/10.30641/dejure.2022.V22.229-242
  21. Rahayu, Derita Pratiwi., Faisal., Sari, Rafiqa., & Satrio, Ndaru. (2020). Law Enforcement in the Context of Legal Culture in Society. Law Reform,Vol.16,(No.2),pp.276-289. https://doi.org/10.14710/lr.v16i2.33780
  22. Rofingi., Rozah, Umi., and Asga, Adifyan Rahmat (2022). Problems of Law Enforcement in Realizing the Principle of Equality Before the Law in Indonesia," Law Reform, vol. 18, no. 2, pp.222-237. https://doi.org/10.14710/lr.v18i2. 47477
  23. Roisah, Kholis., Saraswati, Retno., Setiyono, Joko., Christmas, Sandy Kurnia., & Mat Basri, Salawati. (2022). Dynamics and Practices of the Implementation of International Treaties in Indonesian Laws. ResMilitaris, Vol.12, (No.2), pp.2797-2806. https://resmilitaris.net/menu-script/index.php/resmilitaris/article/view/378
  24. Rugian, Irene A. (2021). Prinsip Proporsionalitas dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi (Studi Perbandingan di Indonesia dan Jerman). Jurnal Konstitusi, Vol.18, (No.2), pp.461-479. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk18210
  25. Safa’at, Muchamad Ali., (2022). The Roles of the Indonesian Constitutional Court in Determining State-Religion Relations. Constitutional Review,Vol.8,(No.1),pp.113-150. https://doi.org/10.31078/consrev815
  26. Satriawan, Iwan., & Mokhtar, Khairil Azmin. (2015) The Constitutional Court’s Role in Consolidating Democracy and Reforming Local Election. Constitutional Review, Vol.1, (No.1),pp.103-129. https://doi.org/10.31078/consrev115
  27. Sisinaru, Sostones Y., & Harijanti, Susi Dwi. (2022). The Constitutionality of Outsourcing Job Regulation in the Law on Job Creation. Law Reform,Vol.18,(No.1),pp.79-88. https://doi.org/10.14710/lr.v18i1.44249
  28. Sweet, Alec Stone., & Mathews, Jud. (2017). Proportionality and Rights Protection in Asia: Hong Kong, Malaysia, South Korea, Taiwan - Whither Singapore?. Singapore Academy of Law Journal, Vol. 29, Dec 2017, pp. 774-799, https://journalsonline.academypublishing.org.sg/Journals/Singapore-Academy-of-Law-Journal-Special-Issue/e-Archive/ctl/SALArticlesListing/mid/513/IssueId=142
  29. Taufik, Giri A. (2018). Proportionality Test in the 1945 Constitution: Limiting Hizbut Tahrir Freedom of Assembly. Constitutional Review, Vol.4,(No.1), pp.45-76. https://doi.org/10.31078/consrev413
  30. Triyana, Heribertus J. (2022). Conscientious Objection Before the Indonesian Constitutional Court. Constitutional Review, Vol.8, (No.2), pp.323-360. https://doi.org/10.31078/consrev 825
  31. Wisnaeni, Fifiana., & Herawati, Ratna. (2020). The Politics of Law of Pancasila-based Democracy in Indonesia as the World’s Third Largest Democracy. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, Vol.9, (No 4), pp.39-45. https://doi.org/10.36941/ajis-2020-0059
  32. Asshiddiqie, Jimly. (2011). Perihal Undang-Undang. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers
  33. Butt, Simon. (2015). The Constitutional Court and Democracy in Indonesia. Netherlands: Brill Nijhoff
  34. Corkin, Nicola C. (2010). Developments in Abstract Judicial Review in Austria, Italy, and Germany. United Kingdom: University of Birmingham
  35. Huscroft, Grant., Miller, Bradley W., & Webber, Gr´egoire. (2014). Proportionality and The Rule of Law: Rights, Justification, Reasoning. United States: Cambridge University Press
  36. Lailam, T. (2015). Pertentangan Norma Hukum dalam Praktik Pengujian Undang-undang di Indonesia. Yogyakarta: LP3M UMY
  37. Petersen, N. (2017). Proportionality and Judicial Activism Fundamental Rights Adjudication in Canada, Germany, and South Africa. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press
  38. Rahardjo, S. (2003). Sisi-sisi Lain dari Hukum di Indonesia. Jakarta: Kompas
  39. Nußberger, Angelika. “Subsidiarity in the Control of Decisions Based on Proportionality: An Analysis of the Basis of the Implementation of ECtHR Judgments into German Law,” Anja Seibert-Fohr and Mark E. Villiger (ed). (2014). Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights – Effects and Implementation. Germany: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft
  40. Hendrianto, S. (2020). Against the Currents: The Indonesian Constitutional Court in an Age of Proportionality, in Po Jen Yap (ed). Proportionality in Asia. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press
  41. Hailbronner, Michaela., & Martini, Stefan. (2017). “The German Federal Constitutional Court”, in Andr´as Jakab, Arthur Dyevre, and Giulio Itzcovich (ed), Comparative Constitutional Reasoning.United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press
  42. Bundesverfassunggericht. (2022). 2022 Annual Report “Basic Law – European – International“. Germany
  43. Maruarar Siahaan, “Pendapat Ahli”, dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 59/PUU-XIV/2016 perihal Pengujian Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2016 tentang Pengampunan Pajak
  44. Yustinus Prastowo, “Pendapat Ahli”, dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 59/PUU-XIV/2016 perihal Pengujian Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2016 tentang Pengampunan Pajak

Last update:

No citation recorded.

Last update: 2024-11-05 07:34:21

No citation recorded.