The Invisible Constitution in Comparative Perspective

10.3.1. The Negara Hukum as a Self-Explanatory Concept

In the cases discussed above, the Court appears to have treated the Negara 

Hukum concept, and its necessary implications, as uncontentious and self- 

explanatory. However, nothing could be further from the truth in Indonesia. 

The Negara Hukum is one of Indonesia’s most contentious legal concepts. 

The Constitution does not define it, and no other law explains the concept in 

significant detail. Indonesian jurists have long debated what it entails in both 

theory and practise, without reaching consensus. Hosen neatly summarises 

some of the differing scholarly views:

The debate over Negara Hukum in Indonesian legal history is reflected in  

the writings of (to name but a few): Sunaryati Haryono, who interpreted 

Negara Hukum in light of the rule of law; Oemar Seno Adji, who opined that 

28 

Mitchel de S.-O.-L’E. Lasser, Judicial Deliberations: A Comparative Analysis of Judicial Trans-

parency and Legitimacy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 303.

29 

Simon Butt and Tim Lindsey, ‘Judicial Mafia: The Courts and State Illegality in Indonesia’, 

in Edward Aspinall and Gary van Klinken (eds.), The State and Illegality in Indonesia (Leiden: 

KITLV Press, 2010).

---

 

The Indonesian Constitutional Court 

309

Negara Hukum had its own Indonesian characteristics based on the family 

principle; Padmo Wahyono, who related the concept Negara Hukum with the 

political philosophy of organic statism (integralism or integralistik); Ismail 

Suny, who adhered to the literal meaning of Negara Hukum as rechsstaat; 

and Hartono Marjono, who took the view that elements of Negara Hukum 

are supremacy of law, equality before the law and due process of law.

30

Here, we see the concept of Negara Hukum equated with all ‘versions’ of the 

rule of law, both ‘thick’ and ‘thin’.

31

 On one extreme are views that Negara 

Hukum encompasses the Western concept of the ‘rule of law’, including its 

democracy and human rights components. On the other is a much more lim-

ited version of rule by law, with no guarantees against authoritarianism. For 

example, the ‘family principle’ and ‘organic statism’ both provide scope for a 

very strong state, with limited democracy and human rights. As described by 

Indonesian jurists, the organic state is one in which the state and its people are 

an inseparable whole, in which there is no need to guarantee rights against the 

state or provide institutions citizens can use to challenge the state. Because 

the state was ‘integrated’, the state can never be at odds with the individuals 

comprising it.

32

 As one prominent Indonesian jurist, Professor Soepomo, put 

it during constitutional debates in the lead-up to Indonesian independence:

There will be no need for any guarantee of Grund- und Freiheitsrechte [basic 

rights] of individuals against the state, for the individuals are nothing else 

than organic parts of the state, having specific positions and duties to realise 

the grandeur of the state.

33

The ‘family principle’ was similar:

The duties which father asks his wife and children to carry out are happily 

accepted, and there is no grumbling. What father says is right, because father 

is wise!

34

The need for a clear and well-reasoned description of what the Negara Hukum 

entails in post-Soeharto Indonesia is highly desirable, particularly given that 

30 

Nadirsyah Hosen, Human Rights, Politics and Corruption in Indonesia: A Critical Reflection