Injunctions in the Indonesian Constitutional Court

This article examines how the Indonesian Constitutional Court responds to requests for provisional decisions (putusan provisi) – interim orders sought to prevent constitutional harm while a challenge to a statute is heard. Applicants frequently ask the Court to expedite a hearing, to suspend an impugned provision, or to order an official to refrain from acting pending the final decision. Drawing on the Court’s published decisions, I show that it has almost always refused, and that the grounds it gives for refusing are applied neither consistently nor transparently. On the rare occasions the Court has granted interim relief, it has not adequately explained why those cases warranted a departure from its usual practice. I argue that the Court should articulate a structured test, of the kind developed by other constitutional courts and international tribunals, and apply it openly. A clearer practice would make the Court’s orders harder to dismiss as politics and easier to defend as law.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Asia Pacific Law Review
Published
2026-09-08
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/10192557.2026.2729035
Primary Topic
Asian Studies and History
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Injunctions in the Indonesian Constitutional Court

Simon Butt
Asia Pacific Law Review
Asian Studies and History
article

Injunctions in the Indonesian Constitutional Court

Simon Butt
article en

Abstract

This article examines how the Indonesian Constitutional Court responds to requests for provisional decisions (putusan provisi) – interim orders sought to prevent constitutional harm while a challenge to a statute is heard. Applicants frequently ask the Court to expedite a hearing, to suspend an impugned provision, or to order an official to refrain from acting pending the final decision. Drawing on the Court’s published decisions, I show that it has almost always refused, and that the grounds it gives for refusing are applied neither consistently nor transparently. On the rare occasions the Court has granted interim relief, it has not adequately explained why those cases warranted a departure from its usual practice. I argue that the Court should articulate a structured test, of the kind developed by other constitutional courts and international tribunals, and apply it openly. A clearer practice would make the Court’s orders harder to dismiss as politics and easier to defend as law.

Asia Pacific Law Review
The University of Sydney (AU)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Asian Studies and History
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.