•  
  •  
 

Abstract

This study evaluates the structured proportionality test modelled after the German approach. It argues that the Indonesian Constitutional Court should adopt this test when reviewing statutory limitations on constitutional rights under the amended 1945 Constitution. While the structurally weak protection of constitutional rights in the Constitution provides the contextual motivation for this inquiry, the central focus is instrumental: to assess the benefits and challenges of proportionality as a tool for improving judicial reasoning in constitutional rights adjudication. The analysis identifies three key benefits, including enhanced problem identification, improved justification of legislative limitations, and strengthened methodological rigor in judicial decision-making. At the same time, the test presents three primary challenges—potential inconsistency in judicial outcomes, difficulties in resolving clashes of principles, and the need for courts to engage with empirical data beyond purely normative reasoning. Despite these challenges, the absence of a structured evaluative framework risks allowing disproportionate limitations to be upheld or proportionate limitations to be struck down. This study argues that proportionality, as a structured set of evaluative questions, provides a more coherent and transparent method for constitutional rights adjudication than unstructured or preference-driven reasoning.

References

1. Barak, Aharon. ``Proportionality Stricto Sensu (Balancing).'' In Rights: Concepts and Contexts, edited by Brian H. Bix and Horacio Spector, 2nd ed., 507–38. New York: Routledge, 2012.
2. Barak, Aharon. Proportionality: Constitutional Rights and Their Limitations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
3. Borowski, Martin. ``Absolute Rights and Proportionality.'' In German Yearbook of International Law, edited by Kerstin Odendahl, Nele Matz-Luck, and Andreas von Arnauld, 56:385–424. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2013. https://heinonline.org/HOL/License.
4. Cananea, Giacinto della. Due Process of Law Beyond the State: Requirements of Administrative Procedure. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198788386.003.0003.
5. Dewansyah, Bilal. ``Aspek Proporsionalitas Pembatasan Kebebasan Berserikat Terhadap Organisasi Kemasyarakatan Dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 2/PUU-XVI/2018.'' In Hukum, Hak Asasi, Dan Demokrasi, edited by Indra Perwira, Mei Susanto, and M. Adnan Yazar Zulfikar, 311–30. Bandung: Pusat Studi Kebijakan Negara Fakultas Hukum Universitas Padjadjaran (PSKN FH Unpad), 2019.
6. Ducoulombier, Peggy. ``Interaction between Human Rights: Are All Human Rights Equal?'' In Research Handbook on Human Rights and Intellectual Property, edited by Christophe Geiger. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2015. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783472420.00011.
7. Fazio, Federico De. ``Proportionality Test and Constitutional Social Rights.'' In Proportionality, Balancing, and Rights. Ed. Jan-R. Sieckmann. Cham: Springer, 2021.
8. Ginsburg, Tom and Rosalind Dixon. ``The Forms and Limits of Judicial Review.'' In Comparative Constitutional Law. Ed. Tom Ginsburg and Rosalind Dixon. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2018.
9. Girsang, Persadaan, E.B. Sitorus, Anselmus Tan, Suprayitno, and Christiani R. Tarigan. ``Naskah Akademik Rancangan Undang-Undang Tentang Desa.'' Jakarta, 2007.
10. Hendrianto, Stefanus. ``Against the Currents: The Indonesia Constitutional Court in an Age of Proportionality.'' In Proportionality in Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020.
11. Hugo, C., and Thomas M.J. Möllers, eds. Transnational Impacts on Law: Perspectives from South Africa and Germany. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, 2017. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845287775.
12. Donelly, Jack. The Concept of Human Rights. London: Routledge, 2019.
13. Asshiddiqie, Jimly. Pengantar Ilmu Hukum Tata Negara. 1st ed. Jakarta: Sekretariat Jenderal dan Kepaniteraan Mahkamah Konstitusi RI, 2006.
14. Wheare, K.C. Modern Constitutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1960.
15. Klatt, Matthias, and Moritz Meister. The Constitutional Structure of Proportionality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
16. Kremnitzer, Mordechai, Talya Steiner, and Andrej Lang. ``Comparative and Empirical Insights into Judicial Practice: Towards an Integrative Model of Proportionality.'' In Proportionality in Action: Comparative and Empirical Perspectives on the Judicial Practice. Eds. Mordechai Kremnitzer, Talya Steiner, and Andrej Lang. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020.
17. Kyritsis, Dimitrios. Constitutional Law as Legitimacy-Enhancer: Democratic Self-Government as the Aim of Constitutionalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022.
18. Van Apeldoorn, L.J. Pengantar Ilmu Hukum. 30th ed. Jakarta: Pradnya Pramita, 2004.
19. Ranchordás, Sofia and Boudewijn de Waard, ``Introduction.'' In The Judge and the Proportionate Use of Discretion: A Comparative Administrative Law Study. Eds. Sofia Ranchordás and Boudewijn de Waard. New York: Routledge, 2015.
20. Roestandi, Achmad. Mahkamah Konstitusi Dalam Tanya Jawab. Jakarta: Sekretariat Jendral dan Kepaniteraan Mahkamah Konstitusi RI, 2006.
21. Roux, Theunis. The Politics of Principle: The First South African Constitutional Court, 1995–2005. 2nd Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019.
22. Sartor, Giovanni. ``Consistency in Balancing: From Value Assessments to Factor-Based Rules.'' In Proportionality in Law: An Analytical Perspective. Eds. David Duarte & Jorge Silva Sampaio. Cham: Springer, 2018.
23. Scalia, Antonin, and Bryan A. Garner. Reading the Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts. Eagan: Thomson/West, 2012.
24. Steiner, Talya Andrej Lang & Mordechai Kremnitzer (eds.). Proportionality in Action: Comparative and Empirical Perspectives on the Judicial Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020.
25. Steiner, Talya. ``Proportionality Analysis and the Engagement with Rights in the Making of Policy: Perspectives from Four Case Studies.'' In Proportionality in Public Policy: The Balance between Rights and Public Interests in Decision-Making. Jerusalem: Israel Democracy Institute, 2019.
26. Sumartini, Tanti, Rizki Emil Birham, Rahmani Atin, and Tasya Talitha Jasmine. Anotasi Undang-Undang No. 24 Tahun 2003 Tentang Mahkamah Konstitusi. Jakarta: Pusat Pemantauan Pelaksanaan Undang-Undang Badan Keahlian, Sekretariat Jenderal DPR RI, 2022.
27. Sweet, Alec Stone and Jud Mathews. Proportionality Balancing and Constitutional Governance: A Comparative and Global Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019.
28. Webber, Gregoire. ``Proportionality and Absolute Rights.'' In Proportionality: New Frontiers, New Challenges, edited by Vicki C. Jackson and Mark Tushnet, 75–99. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.
29. Weber, Albrecht, Karl-Peter Sommermann, and Wolfgang Babeck. ``Building a Fundamental Rights Culture.'' In Writing Constitutions, edited by Wolfgang Babeck and Albrecht Weber, 3–22. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39622-91. Other Documents

30. Alexy, Robert. ``Constitutional Rights and Proportionality.'' Revus: Journal for Constitutional Theory and Philosophy of Law 22 (2014): 51–65. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2426876.
31. Bendor, Ariel L., and Tal Sela. ``How Proportional Is Proportionality?'' International Journal of Constitutional Law 13, no. 2 (April 29, 2015): 530–44. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mov028.
32. Carney, Terrence R. ``Pre-Legislative Scrutiny during the Drafting Process:'' Journal for Juridical Science 49, no. 2 (November 8, 2024): 18–39. https://doi.org/10.38140/jjs.v49i2.7493.
33. Carter, Anne. ``Bridging the Divide? Proportionality and Calibrated Scrutiny.'' Federal Law Review 48, no. 2 (June 1, 2020): 282–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205X20906622.
34. Chang, Yun-chien, and Xin Dai. ``The Limited Usefulness of the Proportionality Principle.'' International Journal of Constitutional Law, July 26, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moab068.
35. Cohen-Eliya, Moshem, and Iddo Porat. ``American Balancing and German Proportionality: The Historical Origins.'' International Journal of Constitutional Law 8, no. 2 (April 2010): 263–86. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moq004.
36. Donato, James. ``Dworkin and Subjectivity in Legal Interpretation.'' Stanford Law Review 40, no. 6 (July 1988): 1517. https://doi.org/10.2307/1228781.
37. Dyevre, Arthur, and András Jakab. ``Foreword: Understanding Constitutional Reasoning.'' German Law Journal 14, no. 8 (August 1, 2013): 983–1015. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2071832200002133.
38. Epstein, Lee, and Jack Knight. ``Reconsidering Judicial Preferences.'' Annual Review of Political Science 16, no. 1 (May 11, 2013): 11–31. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-032211-214229.
39. Febriani, Nita Putri. ``Telaah Konflik Pengukuhan Raja Perempuan Di Keraton Yogyakarta (Dalam Tinjauan Sosiologis).'' Jurnal Studi Budaya Nusantara 7, no. 1 (June 2023): 33–48. https://jsbn.ub.ac.id/index.php/sbn/article/view/186.
40. Gestel, Rob van, and Jurgen de Poorter. ``Putting Evidence-Based Law Making to the Test: Judicial Review of Legislative Rationality.'' The Theory and Practice of Legislation 4, no. 2 (May 3, 2016): 155–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/20508840.2016.1259899.
41. Gross, Peter W. ``The Theory of Judicial Reasoning-Toward A Reconstruction.'' Kentucky Law Journal 66, no. 4 (1978): 801–47.
42. Hadiningrat, Karaton Ngayogyakarta. ``Raja-Raja.'' Accessed May 27, 2025. https://www.kratonjogja.id/raja-raja/.
43. Kelly, John M. ``Audi Alteram Partem.'' Natural Law Forum 9 (January 1, 1964).
44. Kharisma, Dona Budi. ``Kepatuhan Dan Kesadaran Hukum Kritis: Kajian Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 50/PUU-VI/2008.'' Jurnal Rechts Vinding: Media Pembinaan Hukum Nasional 11, no. 1 (April 30, 2022): 37. https://doi.org/10.33331/rechtsvinding.v11i1.832.
45. Lailam, Tanto, and Putri Anggia. ``The Indonesian Constitutional Court Approaches the Proportionality Principle to the Cases Involving Competing Rights.'' Law Reform 19, no. 1 (2023): 110–27.
46. Lailam, Tanto, Putri Anggia, and M. Luthfi Chakim. ``The Proportionality Test Models of Competing Rights Cases in the Civil and Common Law Systems: Lesson to Learn for Indonesia.'' Hasanuddin Law Review 10, no. 2 (2024): 206–25. https://doi.org/10.20956/halrev.v10i2.4844.
47. Landau, David, and Rosalind Dixon. ``Abusive Judicial Review: Courts Against Democracy.'' UC Davis Law Review 53 (2020): 1313–87. https://www.bertelsmann-.
48. MacCormick, Daniel. ``Reasonableness and Objectivity.'' Notre Dam Law Review 74, no. 5 (January 1, 1999): 1575–1604.
49. Macey, Jonathan R. ``Judicial Preferences, Public Choice, and the Rules of Procedure.'' The Journal of Legal Studies 23, no. S1 (January 1994): 627–46. https://doi.org/10.1086/467939.
50. Mann, Roni. ``Non-Ideal Theory of Constitutional Adjudication.'' Global Constitutionalism 7, no. 1 (March 22, 2018): 14–53. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045381717000247.
51. Mason, Anthony. ``Proportionality and Calibrated Scrutiny: A Commentary.'' Federal Law Review 48, no. 2 (June 1, 2020): 286–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205X20906038.
52. Miller, Eric J. ``Judicial Preference.'' Houston Law Review 44 (2008). http://ssrn.com/abstract=1078011Electroniccopyavailableat:https://ssrn.com/abstract=1078011.
53. Perry, Thomas D. ``Judicial Method and the Concept of Reasoning.'' Ethics 80, no. 1 (October 1969): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1086/291744.
54. Petrov, Jan. ``How to Detect Abusive Constitutional Practices.'' European Constitutional Law Review 20, no. 2 (June 15, 2024): 191–221. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019624000142.
55. Roux, T. ``Principle and Pragmatism on the Constitutional Court of South Africa.'' International Journal of Constitutional Law 7, no. 1 (August 18, 2008): 106–38. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mon029.
56. Safaat, Muchamad Ali, Aan Eko Widiarto, and Fajar Laksono Suroso. ``Pola Penafsiran Konstitusi Dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Periode 2003 - 2008 Dan 2009 - 2013.'' Jurnal Konstitusi 14, no. 2 (November 2, 2017): 234. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1421.
57. Silva, Virg\\'ılio Afonso da. ``Standing in the Shadows of Balancing: Proportionality and the Necessity Test.'' International Journal of Constitutional Law 20, no. 5 (December 30, 2022): 1738–67. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moac105.
58. Steiner, Talya, Liat Netzer, and Raanan Sulitzeanu-Kenan. ``Necessity or Balancing: The Protection of Rights under Different Proportionality Tests—Experimental Evidence.'' International Journal of Constitutional Law 20, no. 2 (November 9, 2022): 642–63. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moac036.
59. Stone, Adrienne. ``Proportionality and Its Alternatives.'' Federal Law Review 48, no. 1 (2020): 124–56. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.117 7/0067205X19890448.
60. Sulitzeanu-Kenan, Raanan, Mordechai Kremnitzer, and Sharon Alon. ``Facts, Preferences, and Doctrine: An Empirical Analysis of Proportionality Judgment.'' Law & Society Review 50, no. 2 (June 1, 2016): 348–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12203.
61. Sweet, Alec Stone, and Jud Mathews. ``Proportionality Balancing and Global Constitutionalism.'' Columbia Journal Transnational Law 47 (2008): 72–164. http://elibrary.law.psu.edu/fac_workssource:https://works.bepress.com/jud_mathews/3.
62. Tohadi, Tohadi, and Dian Eka Prastiwi. ``Rekonstruksi Hukum Dalam Mewujudkan Kepatuhan Pembentuk Undang-Undang Terhadap Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Sebagai Mekanisme Checks And Balances.'' Jurnal Rechts Vinding: Media Pembinaan Hukum Nasional 11, no. 1 (April 30, 2022): 19. https://doi.org/10.33331/rechtsvinding.v11i1.849.
63. Urbina, Francisco J. ``A Critique of Proportionality.'' American Journal of Jurisprudence 57 (2012): 49–80.
64. ———. ``Is It Really That Easy? A Critique of Proportionality and `Balancing as Reasoning.''' Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence, 27, no. 1 (January 20, 2014): 167–92. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0841820900006275. Legal Documents

65. Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Republik Indonesia dan Presiden Republik Indonesia. Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 24 Tahun 2003 tentang Mahkamah Konstitusi [Amendment to Law Number 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court], Pub. L. No. 8 Tahun 2011 (2011).
66. Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Republik Indonesia dan Presiden Republik Indonesia. Perubahan Ketiga atas Undang-Undang Nomor 24 Tahun 2003 tentang Mahkamah Konstitusi [Third Amendment to Law Number 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court], Pub. L. No. 7 Tahun 2020 (2020).
67. Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Republik Indonesia dan Presiden Republik Indonesia. Undang-Undang tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman [Law on Judicial Power], Pub. L. No. 48 Tahun 2009 (2009).
68. Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Republik Indonesia dan Presiden Republik Indonesia. Undang-Undang tentang Mahkamah Konstitusi [Law on the Constitutional Court], Pub. L. No. 24 Tahun 2003 (2003).
69. Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia. Putusan MK No. 013/PUU-I/2003 [Constitutional Court Decision No. 013/PUU-I/2003] (2003).
70. Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia. Putusan MKRI No. 005/PUU-I/2003 [Constitutional Court Decision No. 005/PUU-I/2003] (2003).
71. Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia. Putusan MKRI No. 10/PUU-VI/2008 [Constitutional Court Decision No. 10/PUU-VI/2008] (2008).
72. Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia. Putusan MKRI No. 36/PUU-XV/2017 [Constitutional Court Decision No. 36/PUU-XV/2017] (2017).
73. Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia. Putusan No. 2-3/PUU-V/2007 [Constitutional Court Decision No. 2-3/PUU-V/2007] (2007).
74. Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia. Putusan No. 88/PUU-XIV/2016 [Constitutional Court Decision No. 88/PUU-XIV/2016] (2016).
75. Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia. Putusan No. 128/PUU-XIII/2015 [Constitutional Court Decision No. 128/PUU-XIII/2015] (2015).
76. Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat Republik Indonesia. Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945 [The 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia] (2002).
77. Presiden Republik Indonesia. Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Terorisme [Eradication of Terrorism Crimes], Pub. L. No. 1 Tahun 2002 (2002).
78. The Constitutional Assembly. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa [Konstitusi Republik Afrika Selatan], Constitution § (1996).

Download

Share

COinS