The Invisible Constitution in Comparative Perspective

Tahun, Repelita) of 1969–70. Sudargo Gautama and Robert N. Hornick, An Introduction to 

Indonesian Law: Unity in Diversity (Bandung: Penerbit Alumni, 1983), 191.

---

 

The Indonesian Constitutional Court 

311

impunity for illegal actions, including human rights violations and massive 

corruption. The regime’s co-option of the judiciary meant that the courts 

could never hold the government to account for breaching the law or human 

rights, let alone add any ‘flesh’ to this three-pronged definition.

After Soeharto’s fall, reformists called for greater ‘rule of law’ as part of 

broader democratic and governance reforms and sincere attempts were made 

to improve judicial independence, to ensure the government was subject to 

law, and to provide legal protection for human rights. The Negara Hukum 

concept itself was also constitutionally ‘elevated’. Before the post-Soeharto 

constitutional amendments, the Constitution’s Elucidation mentioned that  

Indonesia was a ‘rechtsstaat’, not a ‘machtsstaat’; but in 2001, the statement 

that Indonesia was a Negara Hukum was inserted into Article 1(3) of the 

Constitution’s text. At the same time, other foundational principles were 

inserted. These included that Indonesia is a Unitary Republic (Article 1(1)) 

and that sovereignty lies in the hands of the people (Article 1(2)).

10.3.1.1.  The Court and the Rule of Law: Majority Perspectives

Unfortunately, while the Court has repeatedly emphasised the importance 

of the Negara Hukum, the Court has not comprehensively explained what 

Indonesia’s version of the rule of law is and what it entitles citizens to, beyond 

its bald uncovering of rights in the cases mentioned above. Nevertheless, 

majority decisions have provided clues about the elements of the Negara 

Hukum in cases where the Court has not implied rights but has applied spe-

cific constitutional rights. However, the Court’s statements have been mostly 

brief and piecemeal.

The Court has, for example, appeared to include within the rule of law the 

concept of ‘government by law’, holding that:

a principle of the Negara Hukum is that the state and citizens must submit to 

the law in performing their respective functions and tasks. Whenever a vio-

lation of the law occurs, the law must be upheld through a legal mechanism 

that has been stipulated democratically (due process of law).

39

In other cases, the Court has indicated that the Negara Hukum also embodies 

equality before the law

40

 and an understanding that every person has human 

39 

Constitutional Court Decision 69/PUU-X, 137, para 3.10.1.

40 

Constitutional Court Decision 21/PUU-XII/2014, 101; Constitutional Court Decision 73/ 

PUU-IX/2011, para 3.23.

---

312 

Simon Butt

rights that the state must respect.

41

 Another principle included within the 

Negara Hukum is that:

judicial decisions must be considered to be correct (res judicata pro  

veritate habetur) until there is a decision of a higher court overturning 

that decision . . . [and] there is a right for justice seekers to appeal a judicial 

decision.

42

These additional implied Negara Hukum entitlements do not, however, appear 

to stand alone. Rather, they seem dependent upon, or at least linked with, 

rights expressly provided in the Constitution. As the Court said in the Muhlis