Comparative Study on Judicial Review Mechanisms between Indonesia and South Africa: Implications for Strengthening Constitutionalism

Abstract

Judicial review is a key mechanism for maintaining constitutional supremacy and strengthening constitutionalism in modern democracies. Both Indonesia and South Africa, emerging from authoritarian regimes, adopted judicial review as part of their constitutional transition, but with different institutional choices and procedures. This study aims to compare the mechanisms of judicial review in Indonesia and South Africa and analyze their implications for constitutionalism. Using normative legal research with statutory, conceptual, case, comparative, and historical approaches, this study examines constitutional provisions, judicial practices, and relevant scholarly works. The findings show that Indonesia applies a dualistic model: the Constitutional Court reviews statutes, while the Supreme Court reviews regulations below statutes, creating fragmentation and weakening enforcement. In contrast, South Africa adopts a centralized model, with its Constitutional Court as the sole guardian of the Constitution, supported by entrenched rights, strong guarantees of independence, and a unique certification mechanism for constitutional amendments. These institutional differences affect the degree of legal certainty, public legitimacy, and the ability of courts to safeguard constitutionalism. The study concludes that while Indonesia has made significant progress, lessons from South Africa highlight the importance of consolidating judicial review authority, strengthening compliance with judicial decisions, and enhancing participatory legitimacy in constitutional change.