Abstrak 
Comparative Law And Constitutional Amendment: The Case Of Indonesia
Susi Dwi Harijanti
Universitas Padjadjaran, Conference Papers The Third International Conference on Comparative Law and Global Common Law The Role of Comparative Law in the Development of a Legal System China University of Political Science and Law 25-26 September, 2015
Bahasa Inggris
Universitas Padjadjaran, Conference Papers The Third International Conference on Comparative Law and Global Common Law The Role of Comparative Law in the Development of a Legal System China University of Political Science and Law 25-26 September, 2015
Comparative Law, Constitutional Amendment
As a result of strong demand for constitutional reform, the Indonesian Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat (the People’s Consultative Assembly, hereafter the PCA ) – a supreme sovereign body – amended the nation’s 1945 Constitution for the fourth time since 1999. The whole series of constitutional amendment was due in August 2002. The First Amendment in 1999 was dominated by new articles aimed at strengthening the role of the legislative body and reducing the executive powers. The Second Amendment was ratified on 18 August 2000, and mostly dealt with human rights and the radical change in terms of decentralization. The Third Amendment took place in 2001 and marked the most revolutionary change to the Constitution. It reduced the PCA’s power, established new constitutional bodies; made changes to procedures regulating the election of president and vice president; and introduced a ‘bicameral’ system. Finally, the Fourth Amendment was passed in August 2002, and mostly dealt with matters on process of constitutional amendment, education, economics and social welfare, as well as the establishment of a Presidential Advisory Board. In contemporary practice of constitutional amendment, countries have often been utilized method of borrowing which then can lead to new constitutional system of those countries. However, in doing so, the process of amendment can also include moment of creative innovation and experimentation.2 Undoubtedly, this practice was also happened in Indonesia_ Although in the process of debates, the drafters of the Amended Constitution as well as the expert team3 did not explicitly state the use of comparative law, however, to certain extent they used other countries practices as an object of comparison. This is in line with Cheryl Saunders’ opinion in which she correctly argues that comparative constitutional law is inevitably engaged in any constitution-making4. In the similar vein, Francois Venter also states the use of constitutional comparison is inevitable.5 In my view, the use of comparative law is also fundamental in relation to constitutional amendment process.