Normative and practical authorities of the constitutional court and the supreme court in upholding constitutional supremacy in Indonesia

Abstract

The Constitutional Court (CC) and the Supreme Court (SC) represent two central pillars of Indonesia’s judicial system, entrusted with upholding law, justice, and constitutional supremacy. While the Constitutional Court holds the authority to review laws against the Constitution, the Supreme Court possesses the authority to review regulations below the level of laws. Ideally, these mandates should complement one another to ensure the protection of citizens’ constitutional rights and the coherence of the legal system. However, in practice, overlapping jurisdictions, inconsistent rulings, and limited coordination between the CC and SC often create legal uncertainty and undermine the effectiveness of judicial review. This study employs a normative juridical approach, combining statutory, historical, and philosophical perspectives, and is supported by limited comparative analysis of judicial review models in Germany, France, and the United States. The findings indicate that Indonesia requires clearer jurisdictional boundaries and stronger institutional synergy between the CC and SC to prevent fragmentation and to strengthen the rule of law. Reformulating the regulatory framework of judicial authority and introducing mechanisms of judicial dialogue are essential to ensure constitutional supremacy, safeguard fundamental rights, and promote legal stability.