Comparative Judiciaries: Unveiling Judicial Review Practices in Malaysia & Indonesia

This comparative study analyses the judicial review systems in Malaysia and Indonesia. It highlights the constitutional framework, the highest courts in each country, and the limitations on judicial review. Malaysia’s constitution is based on a parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarchy, while Indonesia’s constitution is based on a presidential democracy with a separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judiciary branches. In Malaysia, the Federal Court is the highest court, while in Indonesia, the Constitutional Court is the final authority on constitutional matters. Both countries have limitations on judicial review but have demonstrated a commitment to strengthening their systems to promote transparency, accountability, and good governance. The aim of this study is to analyze the judicial review systems in Malaysia and Indonesia to identify the strengths and weaknesses of both systems. The study adopts a qualitative approach, utilizing doctrinal and case study methods. Analysing cases decided by the Malaysian and Indonesian courts on judicial review forms a significant part of the data analysis. The collected data were analyzed using thematic and content analysis through specific themes and coding. The findings of this study provide a summary of the development of judicial review in Malaysia, which may serve as a reference for policymakers, academicians, and future researchers. Future research should focus on comparative studies with other Commonwealth countries that share similar legal systems or with countries that follow civil law systems.