Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T19:02:26.375Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Constitutional Struggles and the Court in Indonesia’s Turn to Authoritarian Politics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Herlambang P Wiratraman Open the ORCID record for Herlambang P Wiratraman [Opens in a new window]
Herlambang P Wiratraman*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Law, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
*
The author may be contacted at herlambang.perdana@ugm.ac.id
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Indonesia’s politics has changed dramatically during Jokowi’s administration. Numbers of scholars argued this situation turns to a ‘new model of authoritarianism’ or declining democracy. The situation is generally referred to as the strengthening of authoritarian politics. Meanwhile, in such situation, the role of the judiciary is the key to balancing power in authoritarian politics. However, in reality, efforts to encourage constitutional struggle through the judiciary will easily reverse the situation to lose its independence. The court could play a significant role in authoritarian politics. This phenomenon has been called the ‘judicialisation of authoritarian politics’. This article dissects how the process of authoritarian political institutionalisation through law and the courts has occurred in the two decades after Suharto’s reforms. Then it examines how civil society changes and the democracy movement have made it possible to advance constitutional rights in the context of Indonesia’s cartel politics and the judicialisation of authoritarian politics. The legal argument for such judicial practice is that authoritarianism has been increasingly institutionalised, facilitating oligarchy networks in a cartelised political system, so that law and the judiciary merely work to strengthen the chain of impunity.

Type
Special Issue (Part 2): Constitutional Struggles in Asia
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 50 , Issue 3: Special Issue (Part 2): Constitutional Struggles in Asia , September 2022 , pp. 314 - 330
Copyright
Copyright © 2022 The Author(s)

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Marcus Mietzner, ‘Coercing Loyalty: Coalitional Presidentialism and Party Politics in Jokowi’s Indonesia’ (2016) 38(2) Contemporary Southeast Asia 209, 228.

2. Vedi Hadiz, ‘Indonesia’s Year of Democratic Setbacks: Towards a New Phase of Deepening Illiberalism?’ (2017) 53(3) Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies 261, 262.

3. Eve Warburton and Edward Aspinall, ‘Explaining Indonesia’s Democratic Regression: Structure, Agency and Popular Opinion’ (2019) 41(2) Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of International and Strategic Affairs 255, 255.

4. ‘Indonesia in the Democratic Recession’, Berkeley Political Review (online), 28 March 2017 <https://bpr.berkeley.edu/2017/03/28/indonesia-in-the-democratic-recession/>.

5. David Bourchier, Illiberal Democracy in Indonesia: The Ideology of the Family State (Routledge, 2015).

6. Thomas Power, ‘Jokowi’s Authoritarian Turn and Indonesia’s Democratic Decline’ (2018) 54(3) Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, 307, 307–38.

7. Herlambang P Wiratraman, ‘Pemilu dan Neo-Otoritarianisme’ [Elections and Neo-Authoritarianism] in Feri Amsari, Khairul Fahmi and Charles Simabura (eds), Prosiding Koferensi Nasional Hukum Tata Negara Ke-5: Tantangan Menjaga Daulat Rakyat Dalam Pemilihan Umum [Proceedings of the 5th National Constitutional Law Conference: The Challenge of Maintaining People’s Sovereignty in General Elections] (Pusat Studi Konstitusi [Center for Constitutional Studies], 2018) 98.

8. Greg Fealy, ‘Jokowi in the Covid-19 Era: Repressive Pluralism, Dynasticism and the Overbearing State’ (2020) 56(3) Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, 301, 301–23.

9. Tamir Moustafa, ‘Law and Courts in Authoritarian Regimes’ (2014) 10(1) Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 281, 281–99.

10. Ibid 282.

11. Usman Hamid, ‘Indonesia’s Information Law has threatened free speech for more than a decade. This must stop’, The Conversation (online), 25 November 2019 <https://theconversation.com/indonesias-information-law-has-threatened-free-speech-for-more-than-a-decade-this-must-stop-127446>; ‘Indonesia: UN experts sound alarm on serious Papua abuses, call for urgent aid’, OHCHR, 1 March 2022 <https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/03/indonesia-un-experts-sound-alarm-serious-papua-abuses-call-urgent-aid>.

12. ‘Civil and Political Rights’ Violations in Papua and West Papua, List of issues prior to reporting (LOIPR) for Indonesia CCPR Session 129, June–July 2020′, Amnesty International, 31 May 2020 <https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa21/2445/2020/en/>.

13. Yayasan Lembaga Bantuan Hukum Indonesia, Otoritarian dan Oligarki Membuncah di Tengah Pandemi [Authoritarian and Oligarch Strengthen in the Middle of Pandemic] (Report, 19 December 2021) 27–31 <https://ylbhi.or.id/bibliografi/laporan-tahunan/otoritarian-dan-oligarki-membuncah-di-tengah-pandemi/>.

14. Dewi Nurita, ‘2 Tahun Jokowi — Ma’ruf dan Paradoks Janji Politik’ [Two Years of Jokowi-Ma’ruf and the Paradox of Political Promises], Tempo.co (online), 21 October 2021 <https://nasional.tempo.co/read/1519559/2-tahun-jokowi-maruf-dan-paradoks-janji-politik>.

15. Arif Maulana et al, Demokrasi di Tengah Oligarki dan Pandemi: Laporan Tahunan LBH Jakarta 2020 [Democracy in the context of Oligarch and Pandemic: Annual Report of Jakarta Legal Aid Institute, 2020] (Report, 2020) 16.

16. Egi Adyatama, ‘Democratic Backsliding Focal Point in LBH Jakarta’s Year-end Report’, Tempo (online), 18 December 2020 <https://en.tempo.co/read/1415725/democratic-backsliding-focal-point-in-lbh-jakartas-year-end-report>.

17. Edward Aspinall and Marcus Mietzner, ‘Southeast Asia’s Troubling Elections: Nondemocratic Pluralism in Indonesia’ (2019) 30(4) Journal of Democracy, 104, 104–18.

18. Herlambang P Wiratraman, ‘Pemilu dan Neo-Otoritarianisme’ [Elections and Neo-Authoritarianism] in Feri Amsari, Khairul Fahmi and Charles Simabura (eds), Prosiding Koferensi Nasional Hukum Tata Negara Ke-5: Tantangan Menjaga Daulat Rakyat Dalam Pemilihan Umum [Proceedings of the 5th National Constitutional Law Conference: The Challenge of Maintaining People’s Sovereignty in General Elections] (Pusat Studi Konstitusi [Center for Constitutional Studies], 2018) 98.

19. Kuskridho Ambardi. ‘The Making of the Indonesian Multiparty System: A Cartelized Party System and Its Origin’ (PhD Dissertation, The Ohio State University, 2008) 2–3.

20. Paul Brooker, Non-Democratic Regimes: Theory, Government, and Politics (MacMillan Press, 2000) 3.

21. Sebastiaan Pompe, The Indonesian Supreme Court: A Study of Institutional Collapse (Cornell Southeast Asia Program Publications, 2005).

22. Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia art 1(3).

23. Fareed Zakaria, ‘The Rise of Illiberal Democracy’, (November/December 1997) Foreign Affairs <https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1997-11-01/rise-illiberal-democracy>.

24. Wiratraman, ‘Pemilu dan Neo-Otoritarianisme’ [Elections and Neo-Authoritarianism] (n 7).

25. Bonifasius Hargens, ‘Oligarchic Cartelization in Post-Suharto Indonesia: Exploring the Legislative Process of 2017 Election Act’ (PhD Thesis, Walden University, 2019) 8.

26. See Francis Fukuyama, Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy (Profile Books, 2014)

27. Adriaan Bedner, ‘An Elementary Approach to the Rule of Law’ (2010) 2(1) Hague Journal on the Rule of Law 48.

28. He Li, Political Thought and China’s Transformation: Ideas Shaping Reform in Post-Mao China (Palgrave Macmillan, 2015) 31.

29. Ambardi (n 19).

30. Moch Nurhasim, ‘Ambang Batas Pencalonan dan Kecenderungan Koalisi’, Kompas (online,) 8 November 2018 <https://www.kompas.id/baca/opini/2018/11/08/ambang-batas-pencalonan-dan-kecenderungan-koalisi/>.

31. Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, How Democracies Die (Crown, 2018).

32. Ibid 7–8.

33. Natasha M Ezrow and Erica Frantz, Dictators and Dictatorships: Understanding Authoritarian Regimes and Their Leaders (Bloomsbury, 2011) 2.

34. See Jason Brownlee, ‘Portents of Pluralism: How Hybrid Regimes Affect Democratic Transitions’ (2009) 53(3) American Journal of Political Science 515.

35. Ibid 530–1.

36. Ibid 515–18.

37. Daniel Goh, ‘The Rise of Neo-Authoritarianism: Political Economy and Culture in the Trajectory of Singapore Capitalism’ (Working Paper No 591, Center for Research on Social Organization, University of Michigan, April 2002) 47.

38. Ibid.

39. Ibid 20–1.

40. Wiratraman, ‘Pemilu dan Neo-Otoritarianisme’ [Elections and Neo-Authoritarianism] (n 7).

41. Kurnia Ramadhana, ‘Menyoal Kinerja KPK: Antara Harapan dan Pencapaian’ [Questioning KPK’s Performance: Between Expectations and Achievements] (2019) 5(2) Integritas: Jurnal Antikorupsi [Integrity: Anti-Corruption Journal] 151, 152.

42. ‘Majority of people oppose KPK Law revision, support student protests, new survey reveals’, The Jakarta Post, 7 October 2019 <https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2020/10/11/teachers-lecturers-denounce-ministry-letter-urging-students-not-to-protest-jobs-law.html>.

43. Abdil Mughis Mudhoffir and Afiqa Qurrata A’yun, ‘The Destruction of the KPK Flags the Failure of Democratic Legal Reform in Indonesia’, Indonesia at Melbourne (Blog Post, 17 June 2021) <https://indonesiaatmelbourne.unimelb.edu.au/the-destruction-of-the-kpk-flags-the-failure-of-democratic-legal-reform-in-indonesia/>.

44. ‘Dismissals Following Controversial Civics Test Further Weaken Indonesia’s Anti-Corruption Agency KPK, Transparency International (Press Statement, 4 June 2021) <https://www.transparency.org/en/press/dismissals-controversial-civics-test-further-weaken-indonesia-anti-corruption-agency-kpk>.

45. Ward Berenschot, ‘The Political Economy of Clientelism: A Comparative Study of Indonesia’s Patronage Democracy’ (2018) 51(12) Comparative Political Studies 1563.

46. Andi Tenri Sompa et al, ‘Environmental Political Model and Deforestation Analysis in South Kalimantan, Indonesia’ (2021) 1(2) International Journal of Politic, Public Policy and Environment Issues 158.

47. Vedi R Hadiz, Localising Power in Post-Authoritarian Indonesia: A Southeast Asia Perspective (Stanford University Press, 2010) 15.

48. Sania Mashabi, ‘Laporan TPF Hilang, Suciwati Minta Ombudsman Telaah Kembali Dugaan Maladministrasi di Kemensetneg’, Kompas (online), 17 April 2021 <https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2021/03/16/20101141/laporan-tpf-hilang-suciwati-minta-ombudsman-telaah-kembali-dugaan?page=all>.

49. ‘17 Tahun Kasus Munir Gelap di Era SBY hingga Jokowi’, CNN Indonesia (online), 7 September 2021 <https://www.cnnindonesia.com/nasional/20210907093452-20-690743/17-tahun-kasus-munir-gelap-di-era-sby-hingga-jokowi>.

50. ‘Indonesia: Pemerintah Harus Mempublikasikan Laporan Tim Pencari Fakta Untuk Kasus Munir: Pernyataan Sikap Bersama’, Amnesty International Indonesia (Web Page, 6 September 2017) <https://www.amnesty.id/indonesia-pemerintah-harus-mempublikasikan-laporan-tim-pencari-fakta-untuk-kasus-munir/>.

51. Fachri Fachrudin, ‘Setneg Tak Menyimpan Hasil Investigasi TPF Kasus Kematian Munir’, Kompas (online), 3 August 2016 <https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2016/08/03/05460061/Setneg.Tak.Menyimpan.Hasil.Investigasi.TPF.Kasus.Kematian.Munir>.

52. Rosy Dewi Arianti Saptoyo, ‘17 Tahun Kasus Munir: Kronologi dan Hasil Investigasi’, Kompas (online), 7 September 2021 <https://www.kompas.com/tren/read/2021/09/07/103000465/17-tahun-kasus-munir-kronologi-dan-hasil-investigasi?page=all>.

53. Ihsanuddin, ‘16 Tahun Kasus Pembunuhan Munir, Janji Jokowi Kembali Ditagih’, Kompas (online), 7 September 2020 <https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2020/09/07/20503271/16-tahun-kasus-pembunuhan-munir-janji-jokowi-kembali-ditagih>.

54. Achmad Nasrudin Yahya, ‘Sejumlah Pelaku Pelanggaran HAM Duduki Jabatan Strategis, Jokowi Diminta Evaluasi’, Kompas (online), 12 January 2022 <https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2022/01/12/16561551/sejumlah-pelaku-pelanggaran-ham-duduki-jabatan-strategis-jokowi-diminta>.

55. Haryanti Puspa Sari, ‘Jaksa Agung: Peristiwa Semanggi I dan II Bukan Pelanggaran HAM Berat’, Kompas (online), 16 January 2020 <https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2020/01/16/14240401/jaksa-agung-peristiwa-semanggi-i-dan-ii-bukan-pelanggaran-ham-berat>.

56. Tatang Guritno, ‘Aktor Kunci Penyelesaian Pelanggaran HAM Berat Justru Melawan Orangtua Korban di Meja Pengadilan’, Kompas (online), 17 March 2021 <https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2021/03/17/06174051/aktor-kunci-penyelesaian-pelanggaran-ham-berat-justru-melawan-orangtua>.

57. M Rosseno Aji, ‘Kasus Besar yang Ditangani Novel Baswedan Saat Diserang’, Tempo.co (online), 28 December 2019 <https://nasional.tempo.co/read/1288620/kasus-besar-yang-ditangani-novel-baswedan-saat-diserang>.

58. Bachtiarudin Alam, ‘Selamat Tinggal Aktor Intelektual Kasus Air Keras Novel Baswedan’, merdeka.com (online), 12 June 2020 <https://www.merdeka.com/peristiwa/selamat-tinggal-aktor-intelektual-kasus-air-keras-novel-baswedan.html>.

59. Ibid.

60. Fachrizal Afandi, ‘The Justice System Postman: The Indonesian Prosecution Service at Work’ in Melissa Crouch (ed), The Politics of Court Reform: Judicial Change and Legal Culture in Indonesia (Cambridge University Press, 2019).

61. Budi Pego v Government Prosecutor [2018] (Banyuwangi Disctrict Court).

62. Andita Rahma, ‘Kisah Budi Pego, Tolak Tambang Emas Tapi Dituduh Komunis’, Tempo (online), 27 December 2018 <https://nasional.tempo.co/read/1159155/kisah-budi-pego-tolak-tambang-emas-tapi-dituduh-komunis>.

63. Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia art 28H(1).

64. Herlambang P Wiratraman, ‘Criminalising Justice’, Inside Indonesia (online), 1 December 2019 <https://www.insideindonesia.org/criminalising-justice>.

65. Nicholas Herriman, ‘Sorcerer’ Killings in Banyuwangi: A Re-Examination of State Responsibility for Violence (2007), Asian Studies Review 31(1), 61–78.

66. ‘Kawal Sidang Demo Palu Arit, Massa Anti PKI Serbu PN Banyuwangi’ [Monitoring Court Session, Anti-Communist Mass Attend the Banyuwangi District Court], Detik News, 14 September 2017 <https://news.detik.com/berita-jawa-timur/d-3643496/kawal-sidang-demo-palu-arit-massa-anti-pki-serbu-pn-banyuwangi.>

67. Muhammad Azka Fahriza, ‘Kekerasan terhadap Pembela HAM dan Lingkungan terus Terjadi, Terbanyak Dilakukan Aktor Negara’, ELSAM (online), 7 February 2019 <https://elsam.or.id/kekerasan-terhadap-pembela-ham-dan-lingkungan-terus-terjadi-terbanyak-dilakukan-aktor-negara/>.

68. Ibid.

69. Aaron Fernandes, ‘Indonesian Environmental Activist Golfrid Siregar Feared Murdered’, SBS News (online), 16 October 2019 <https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/indonesian-environmental-activist-golfrid-siregar-feared-murdered/snq2j8k0u>.

70. Donald L Horowitz, Constitutional Change and Democracy in Indonesia (Cambridge University Press, 2013).

71. Melissa Crouch, ‘The Judicial Reform Landscape in Indonesia’ in Melissa Crouch (ed), The Politics of Court Reform: Judicial Change and Legal Culture in Indonesia (Cambridge University Press, 2019) 1.

72. Abdil Mughis Mudhoffir and Rafiqa Qurrata A’yun, ‘Doing Business Under the Framework of Disorder: Illiberal Legalism in Indonesia’ (2021) 42(11) Third World Quarterly 2651.

73. Todung Mulya Lubis, ‘Bantuan Hukum: Arah dan Peranannya’ [Legal Aid: Orientation and Its Role] (1973) 6(II) Prisma 81; Todung Mulya Lubis, Bantuan Hukum dan Kemiskinan Struktural [Legal Aid and Structural Poverty] (Jakarta: LP3ES, 1986); Todung Mulya Lubis, ‘Gerakan Bantuan Hukum Di Indonesia: Sebuah Studi Awal’ [Legal Aid Movement in Indonesia: A Preliminary Study], in Abdul Hakim Garuda Nusantara and Mulyana W Kusumah (eds), Beberapa Pemikiran Mengenai Bantuan Hukum: Ke Arah Bantuan Hukum Struktural [Numerous Thoughts on Legal Aid: Orienting Structural Legal Aid] (Alumni, 1990); Adnan Buyung Nasution, Bantuan Hukum di Indonesia (LP3ES, 1981).

74. Daniel Lev, Legal Evolution and Political Authority in Indonesia: Selected Essays (Springer, 1st ed, 2000) 283–304.

75. See M Zaidun, ‘Gerakan Bantuan Hukum Struktural di Indonesia: Studi tentang Tipologi Gerakan Bantuan Hukum Struktural Yayasan LBH Indonesia’ [Structural Legal Aid Movement in Indonesia: Study of Structural Legal Aid Typology of Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation] (Masters Thesis, Airlangga University, 1996).

76. Daniel S Lev, Hukum dan Politik di Indonesia: Kesinambungan dan Perubahan [Law and Politics in Indonesia: Continuity and Change] (LP3ES, 1990); Daniel Lev, ‘Lawyers’ Causes in Indonesia and Malaysia’ in Austin Sarat and Stuart Scheingold (eds), Cause Lawyering: Political Commitments and Professional Responsibilities (Oxford University Press, 1998) 442; Lev (n 74).

77. Herlambang P Wiratraman and Siti Rakhma Mary Herwati, ‘Legal Aid Movement and the Defense of Constitutionalism in Indonesia’ in 8 th Asian Constitutional Law Forum (Conference Proceedings): Asian Constitutional Law, Recent Developments and Trends (Vietnam National University Press, 2020) vol 1, 80.

78. This includes both civil and political rights (particularly protecting religious minorities; the principle of equality before the law; criminal law policy; freedom of association; inquiry rights; freedom of expression; identity rights) and economic, social and cultural rights (eg, land rights claims, worker rights and economic democratization): ibid 85–94.

79. A M Fulthoni, Siti Aminah and Uli Parulian Sihombing, Mengelola Legal Clinic: Panduan Membentuk dan Mengembangkan LBH Kampus untuk Memperkuat Akses Keadilan (The Indonesian Legal Resource Center, 2009).

80. Fachri Fachrudin, ‘Jihad Konstitusi, Upaya Muhammadiyah Meluruskan “Kiblat” Bangsa’ [Constitutional Jihad: Muhammadiyah Orientation for Qibla’s consistency of the Nation], Kompas (online), 8 June 2016 <https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2016/06/08/07010001/Jihad.Konstitusi.Upaya.Muhammadiyah.Meluruskan.Kiblat.Bangsa>.

81. Stefanus Hendrianto, Law and Politics of Constitutional Courts, Indonesia and the Search for Judicial Heroes (Routledge, 2018).

82. Sania Mashabi, ‘PSHK: Pembahasan Revisi UU MK Secara Cepat dan Tertutup Cederai Semangat Reformasi’, Kompas (online), 28 August 2020 <https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2020/08/28/14571751/pshk-pembahasan-revisi-uu-mk-secara-cepat-dan-tertutup-cederai-semangat>.

83. The Constitutional Court has made three types of judicial review decisions. The first involves a total rejection of judicial review: see, eg, Indonesia Constitutional Court, Decision No. 79/PUU-XVII/2019, 4 May 2021; Indonesia Constitutional Court, Decision No. 77/PUU-XVII/2019, 25 November 2019. The second involves a partial rejection: see, eg, Indonesia Constitutional Court, Decision No. 70/PUU-XVII/2019, 4 May 2021. The third involves an ‘inacceptable decision’ (the substantive legal dispute is not proceeded by the judge’s panel): see, eg Indonesia Constitutional Court, Decision No. 71/PUU-XVII/2019, 4 May 2021.

84. The case concerned a ‘Formal Review’ of Law No. 11 of 2020 concerning Job Creation: Indonesia Constitutional Court, Decision No. 91/PUU-XVIII/2020, 25 November 2021.

85. Tom Ginsburg and Tamir Moustafa, ‘Introduction: the Functions of Courts in Authoritarian Politics’ in Tom Ginsburg and Tamir Moustafa (eds), Rule by Law: the Politics of Courts in Authoritarian Regimes (Cambridge University Press, 2008) 1.

86. Ibid 21.

87. Bjorn Dressel, ‘The Judicialization of Politics in Asia: Towards a Framework of Analysis’ in Bjorn Dressel (ed), The Judicialization of Politics in Asia (Routledge, 2012) 1.

88. Budi Pego v Government Prosecutor (n 61).

89. See Aji (n 57).

90. See discussion above in Part III.

91. Hans Nicholas Jong, ‘Family seeks justice as probe into Indonesian activist’s death stalls’ Mongabay (online), 17 February 2020 <https://news.mongabay.com/2020/02/indonesia-golfrid-siregar-nshe-medan-hydropower-batang-toru-walhi/>.

92. Lev (n 74).

93. Rifqi S Assegaf, ‘The Supreme Court: Reformasi, Independence and the Failure to Ensure Legal Certainty’ in Melissa Crouch (ed), The Politics of Court Reform: Judicial Change and Legal Culture in Indonesia (Cambridge University Press, 2019) 31; Adriaan Bedner and Herlambang Perdana Wiratraman, ‘The Administrative Courts: The Quest for Consistency’ in Melissa Crouch (ed), The Politics of Court Reform: Judicial Change and Legal Culture in Indonesia (Cambridge University Press, 2019) 133.