THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT AND THE APPLICATION OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS NORMS: INDONESIA’S EXPERIENCE
Susi Dwi Harijanti
Introduction
In 2002, Indonesia completed a series of constitutional amendment that marked the )ndonesia s transformation to become a democratic constitutional state under the rule of law. A number of new constitutional provisions were adopted and new institutions were
established, including the formation of constitutional court as well as the adoption of a bill
of rights. These two new instruments have been believed as fundamental for the
application of a democratic constitutional state under the rule of law. Furthermore, the
principle of the rule of law was inserted into the paragraph of the Amended Constitution,
which is available in Art. 1 para (3).1
The powerful new Constitutional Court (hereafter the CC) was officially established in
2003. Art. 24C para (1) of the Amended Constitution grants it the powers to make the final
decision in reviewing statutes in the light of the Constitution; to determine dispute
concerning the authority of the state organs whose power is derived from the Constitution;
to dissolve political parties; and to resolve disputes regarding the results of a general
election. Moreover, it has the power to make decisions concerning opinion of the House of
Representatives with regard to alleged violations by the President and/or the Vice
President of the Constitution. In other words, it has the power to have the final legal say in
any impeachment proceedings.2
Presented at the International Short Course on The Mechanism in Conducting Constitutional Authorities in
Indonesia, Jakarta, 4th December 2015. I thank to Wicaksana Dramanda and Adnan for their research
assistance.
S.H. (Padjadjaran University), LLM (The Univ. of Melbourne), PhD (The Univ. of Melbourne), Senior Lecturer
of Constitutional Law and Human Rights Law at Padjadjaran University, Executive Director of the Indonesian Community of Human Rights at Faculty of Law of Padjadjaran University, Associate of the Center of Indonesian Law, Islam and Society (CILIS) at Melbourne Law School.
Since its inception, the CC has been regarded as a new model for judicial reform in
Indonesia in particular in terms of transparency and capability.3 It is seen as concerned
with achieving a broad form of social justice and with advancing the process of democratization .4 More significantly, the CC appears to be emerging as an effective
guardian of the new Constitution ,5 particularly in relation to the human rights norms through the power of constitutional review.
This paper aims to discuss the contribution of the CC in the application of international
human rights norms. This paper proceeds as follows. Part A will explain human rights
norms embedded in the Amended Constitution, which then be followed by Part B that will
discuss some of the CC decisions in regard to human rights. Part C will provide summary of
the discussion. Although I argue that the CC plays an important role in applying
international human rights norms, however, the CC has not yet provided strong and solid
arguments on the use of international treaties on human rights in its decisions.
A. Human Rights and the Amended 1945 Constitution
Although it is not expressly stated, under the Amended 1945 Constitution, the CC is the
states highest jurisdiction on constitutional matters. This is mainly because the CC is the
only court to hear constitutional disputes through which it has the power to make the first
and final binding decision. To understand the breadth of this mandate, in particular it
relates to human rights, a brief overview of human rights provisions is important.
)n , the People s Consultative Assembly –the highest state s organ at the time – agreed to adopt a bill of rights. Unlike its predecessor, human rights and liberties have been one of
the main focuses of the new Constitution. It directly incorporates the Universal Declaration
3Susi Dwi (arijanti and Tim Lindsey, )ndonesia: General Elections test the amended Constitution and the
new Constitutional Court , , )nt t J Con Law .See also, Susi Dwi (arijanti, Comparative Law and Constitutional Amendment: The Case of )ndonesia , Paper presented at the International Conference on Comparative Law organized by College of Comparative Law, China University of Political Science and Law, Beijing, September 25-26, 2015, p4.
of Human Rights.6 Chapter XA of the Constitution dedicates ten articles to human rights and
it is the first meaningful protection of human rights in the Constitution since the Old and New Order governments. Moreover, it represents a radical shift in )ndonesia s
constitutional philosophy from essentially authoritarian to liberal-democratic in nature .7
The Constitution places a heavy burden on the state to guarantee these rights, culminating in Art. ) para , which declares that the protection, advancement, upholding and
fulfillment of human rights are the responsibility of the state, especially the government .
The original 1945 Constitution contained few articles that guaranteed civil and political
rights. The absence of significant constitutional protection had been largely caused by
intense philosophical debates among the founding fathers and the framers of the
constitution during the preparatory process in drafting a constitution for Indonesia in
1945. There were two divided opinions in regard to human rights clause, in particular it
related to freedom of expression. Soepomo strongly rejected the idea of inserting freedom
of expression in a constitution given the fact that this right was closely linked to
individualism and it was therefore in contravention with the philosophical ground of the
constitution which was based on the integralistic staatsidee.8 Soekarno shared similar
argument with that of Soepomo. In contrast, both Mohammad Hatta and Muhammad Yamin
strongly endorsed protection of freedom of expression in a constitution. Hatta argued that
although Indonesia would correctly be based on collectivism, but protection of freedom of
expression was essentially important in order to prevent excessive powers that might be
applied by state or government.9 The debates then resulted in a compromise provision that
fully said:
The freedom to associate and to assemble, to express written and oral opinions, etc., shall be regulated by law.
6See also Tim Lindsey, Constitutional reform in )ndonesia: Muddling towards democracy in Tim Lindsey
(ed), Indonesia: Law and Society, 2nd edition, Annandale, NSW: The Federation Press, 2008, p29.
7Ross Clarke, he Bali Bombing, east Timor trials and the Aceh Human Rights Court – retrospectivity,
impunity and constitutionalism in Tim Lindsey ed , Indonesia: Law and Society, 2nd edition, Annandale, NSW:
The Federation Press, 2008, p432.
8 Muhammad Yamin, Naskah Persiapan Undang-Undang Dasar 1945, Jilid Pertama, Jakarta: Prapanca, 1959,
p114, 314-5.
As mentioned above, the 2000 amendment essentially took the form of a Bill of Rights that
closely modelled on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Constitutional
coverage of protection is arguably more extensive than those of many developed states.10 A
number of specific provisions and protections enshrined within the Amended Constitution
include:
Citizenship, the right to have citizenship and equality before the law.
Anti-discrimination and equal opportunity.
Freedom of expression, assembly and organization.
The right to education, learning and access to information.
The right to a healthy environment.
Freedom of religious and believe and its practice.
Freedom from torture and other degrading or inhumane acts.
The right to adequate housing and health services.
The right to state-funded social welfare services.
The right to have family and to procreate.
Freedom of the press and for the expression of cultural values.
The right of indigenous people.
The right to property
Non-retrospective principle.
Given such extensive constitutional coverage on the protection of human rights, it is thus
essential to have a court which plays major role in enforcing these constitutional rights.
The next Part deals with the application of human rights norms within the CC.
B. The Substantive Human Rights Jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court
The discussion on the application of international human rights norms within the CC will
undoubtedly relate to the issue as whether or not international treaties have been used as
main legal sources, in particular when the CC construes the constitutional provisions. In a broader sense, Simon Butt has identified three approaches to international law in the CC s
decisions.11First is the weak-use approach by which the CC refuses to use international
law as a reference point and ignores or dismisses arguments based on international law
from the parties.12 Surprisingly, in some cases, the CC has rejected the use of international
norms, although the CC may have been influenced by the norms. This is evident, for
example, in its decision on Children s Court Law Case.13 The applicant raised some
international law argument challenging the validity of several provisions that made the age
of criminal culpability eight years old for some offenses. The CC changed that age to twelve,
which was in fact in line with the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. In its decision, however, the CC clearly stated that it was not using these instruments and recommendations . . . [as] a gauge to assess the constitutionality of the age of responsibility for children .14
Second approach is that the CC gives more credence to international law, but attributes no real influence to it.15 This means that the CC refers to international law aiming to merely support a decision in a way it has already arrived at, based on an interpretation of the
Constitution and Indonesian law that the Court claims as its own.
The final approach shows that the CC relying quite heavily on international legal principles
and interpretations from international bodies to help it construe the Indonesian Constitution, the statute being reviewed in the case, or both .16 According to Butt, this
approach is evident in the CC s Decision that reviewing Law 23 of 2003 on General Election
of President and Vice President, which is also known as Abdurrahman Wahid Case
(Constitutional Court No. 008/PUU-II/2004).17 In addition, it is well-expressed by one
judge in a case involving employment rights: [I]n order to understand the right to work in
11Simon Butt, The Position of )nternational Law Within the )ndonesian Legal System , Emory
International Law Review, 15
12 Ibid.
13 Decision Reviewing Law No. of on Children s Courts Children’s Court Law Case) (Constitutional
Court 1/PUU-VIII/2010).
14 Ibid, p151.
15 Simon Butt, above n11, p16.
the Constitution, it is best to carefully study various rights in international labour
conventions.18
)n what follows, ) provide selected case example of the Court s decision that apply international human rights norms. It is important to note, however, that since the CC does
not have power to hear constitutional complaint, all constitutional rights enforcement have
been done through the power of constitutional review.
1. The PKI Case or the Communist Party Case19
The applicants of this case consisted of two groups. The first was filed in Case No.
011/PUU-I/2003, and the second was Case No. 017/PUU-I/2003. According to the CC Rules
of Procedure, these two petitions are allowed to hear simultaneously.
The applicants sought to review the constitutionality of Art. 60g of Law No. 12 of 2003
concerning General Election, which limited the rights of citizens to stand for election. This
article specifically prohibited former members of the banned Indonesian Communist Party, including its mass organizations and any person directly or indirectly involved in the G S/PK) or any other illegal organization to be elected for members of the House of Representatives both at the national and regional and local levels. They argued that Art.
60g breached their constitutional rights as regulated by Art. 27 para (1), Art. 28D para (1)
and Art. 28I para (2) of the Amended Constitution.
The Court s judgment handed down on February , , struck down Art. g, although
one judge dissented.20 In its decision, interestingly, the CC referred to Art. 21 of the UDHR
and Art. 25 of the ICCPR despite the absent argument on the reason why it used such
international legal instruments. The Court recognized that individual rights could be
limited by a statute but it found that those limitations must be based on strong, reasonable,
proportional and not extreme ground . (owever, in its examination, the Court further
18 Ibid.
found that the ban on communist-linked candidates in Art. 60g was based solely on
political grounds, and that these were neither reasonable nor strong. It, thus, decided that
Art. 60g was in contradiction of the Constitution. In particular, the article breached the
following constitutional provisions:
a. Art. 27: equality before the law and government.
b. Art. 28D para (1): equal rights to recognition, security protection, and certainty of
just laws and equal treatment before the law.
c. Art. 28D para (3): right to equal opportunity in government.
d. Art. 28I para (2): rights to freedom from discriminatory treatment.
Accordingly, Art. g was not legally binding and former communists and those suspected of being communists or linked to them, were entitled to stand for election. The Court
further said that this decision was intended as a step toward national reconciliation and
justice for the future .
2. The Bali Bombing Case
The applicant, Masykur Abdul Kadir, had been convicted in )ndonesia s general courts of
involvement in the 2002 Bali Bombings and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment under an
anti-terrorism law that was enacted after the bombings took place (Law No. 16 of 2003).
He argued that this anti-terrorism law, which was applied retrospectively to pursue him
and other perpetrators, breached his constitutional right regulated in Article 28(1) that
prohibit the use of retrospective law.
By majority of five judges to four, the CC handed down decision that declared the disputed
statute was unconstitutional. In making judgment, the majority refered to some of
international legal instruments, including Art. 11 (2) UDHR, Art. 4 (2) ICCPR, and Rome
Statute. Moreover, they cited the US Constitution that prohibits the use retrospective law as
well as regional legal instruments, such as European Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom as well as American Convention on Human
Rights.21
21
According to Butt, from these conventions and examples, the majority reasoned:
[T]he essence of the principle of non-retroactivity is to protect against the criminalisation of an act that was not considered a crime when the act was perpetrated . . . Also prohibited are new laws which stipulate a harsher penalty or punishment than the penalty or punishment applicable at the time the act was committed . . . [Retrospective legislation is justified provided that] it does not violate
the two prohibitions mentioned above.22
Despite the significant use of international legal instruments, in particular which take the
form as international covenant or treaty, it is important to note that at the time Indonesia
was not a party to both the ICCPR and the ICC. Like the PKI Case mentioned above, the
question is, then, under what circumstances does the CC use such a covenant or treaty?
Sadly, however, in its decision, the CC did not again explain further the reason why it used
the international instruments. It is my opinion that in the future, the CC should provide
solid reason that can enrich discussion regarding the position of international law within
the Indonesian legal system.
3. The Abdurahman Wahid Case
The applicant was the former President who challenged the constitutional validity of Art. 6
para (1) of the 2003 General Election Law, which required candidates to be spiritually and
physically capable of performing the duties and responsibilities of President or Vice President . He argued that this article breached his constitutional rights, in particular Art. 27 para (1) of the Amended Constitution. He further argued that Art. 6 para (1) breached
Indonesia s international legal obligation stemming from the )CCPR to which )ndonesia had
been a party.
In examining the case, the CC observed that the applicant should have refered to Art 2 of
the )CCPR that prohibit discrimination based on race, colour, sex, language, religion,
political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Following this, the Court argued that Art. 6 para (1) of Law on General Election did not, in
fact, apply discrimination based on any of these grounds.
22
Surprisingly, the Court cited the 1975 Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons as the
international instrument most relevant to the case.23 Art. 4 of the Declaration stated by the
CC, says:
Disabled persons have the same civil and political rights as other human beings; paragraph 7 of the Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons applies to any possible limitation or suppression of those rights for mentally disabled persons.
Article 7 of the 1971 Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons states:
Whenever mentally retarded persons are unable, because of the severity of their
handicap, to exercise all their rights in a meaningful way or it should become necessary to restrict or deny some or all of these rights, the procedure used for that restriction or denial of rights must contain proper legal safeguard against every form of abuse.
(emphasis in original Court citation).24
Simon Butt argues that the reference to these two Declarations was problematic as the
character of the Declaration is non-binding resolution of the UN General Assembly.25
Furthermore, Butt questions on the use of the Declaration on the Rights of Mentally
Retarded Persons for this case in a way that the Court applies broader interpretation to the
phrase of spiritual and physical capability in Art. para of the disputed law to include
mentally retarded persons . )n this context, ) share the same view with that of Butt.
C. Conclusion
The fact that the CC has played major role in upholding and enforcing international human
rights norms is undisputable. This is evident from some of the selected cases that already
heard by the CC, including the PKI Case and the Bali Bombing Case regardless Indonesia was
not a party to the ICCPR when the CC handed down its decisions.
However, given the fact that the CC often refers to international human rights treaties in
order to interpret disputed statutes, it is important to consider that the Court should
develop practice that will show the position of international law within the Indonesian
23 Indonesia is now a party to the Convention on Person with Disabilities.
legal system. It, thus, should provide clear arguments on the use of particular international
