Kelsen vs Schmitt on Guardians of the Constitution Debates and the Impact on the Indonesian Legal System: Perdebatan Kelsen versus Schmitt mengenai Penjaga Konstitusi dan Implikasinya terhadap Sistem Hukum Indonesia

Tanto Lailam

doi:10.31078/jk2311

Authors

Tanto Lailam Faculty of Law, Universität zu Köln, Köln, Germany https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8539-6304

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31078/jk2311

Keywords:

Carl Schmitt, Guardian of the Constitution, Hans Kelsen, Indonesia

Abstract

This article examines the constitutional debate between Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt during the Weimar Republic concerning the proper institution to serve as the guardian of the Constitution, as well as its relevance to Indonesia. Employing historical and statutory approaches, the study demonstrates that Kelsen assigned this function to the Constitutional Court, whereas Schmitt maintained that the President was better positioned to preserve the constitutional order in times of political crisis. In the short term, Schmitt’s position appeared more compatible with the political conditions of Weimar. In the long term, however, the collapse of Nazism and the postwar development of constitutional adjudication strengthened Kelsen’s model, culminating in the German Federal Constitutional Court as the guardian of the Basic Law. In Indonesia, the Constitutional Court was institutionally designed to perform this function, yet repeated ethical and legal violations by constitutional justices have undermined its legitimacy, independence, and public credibility.

References

Abat Ninet, Antoni. “Kelsen versus Schmitt and the Role of the Sub-National Entities and Minorities in the Appointment of Constitutional Judges in Continental Systems.” ICL Journal 14, no. 4 (2020): 523–43. https://doi.org/10.1515/icl-2020-0015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/icl-2020-0015

Adair-Toteff, Christopher. Carl Schmitt on Law and Liberalism. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57118-4

Bassok, Or. “The Schmitelsen Court: The Question of Legitimacy.” German Law Journal 21, no. 2 (2020): 131–62. https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2020.2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2020.2

Bonifati, Lidia. “Constitutional Design and the Seeds of Degradation in Divided Societies: The Case of Bosnia-Herzegovina.” European Constitutional Law Review 19, no. 2 (2023): 223–48. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019623000123. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019623000123

Brang, Lucas. “Carl Schmitt and the Evolution of Chinese Constitutional Theory: Conceptual Transfer and the Unexpected Paths of Legal Globalisation.” Global Constitutionalism 9, no. 1 (2020): 117–54. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045381719000297. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045381719000297

Brännström, Leila. “Carl Schmitt’s Definition of Sovereignty as Authorized Leadership.” In The Contemporary Relevance of Carl Schmitt: Law, Politics, Theology, edited by Matilda Arvidsson, Leila Brännström, and Panu Minkkinen, 19–33. Abingdon: Routledge, 2016. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315742243. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315742243-2

Carrozza, Paolo. “Kelsen and Contemporary Constitutionalism: The Continued Presence of Kelsenian Themes.” Estudios de Deusto 67, no. 1 (2019): 55–82. https://doi.org/10.18543/ed-67(1)-2019pp55-82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18543/ed-67(1)-2019pp55-82

Collings, Justin. Democracy’s Guardians: A History of the German Federal Constitutional Court 1951–2001. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198753377.001.0001

Ding, Xiaodong. “Reimagining Law and the Constitution: Carl Schmitt and American Constitutional Scholarship.” ICL Journal 13, no. 4 (2019): 403–27. https://doi.org/10.1515/icl-2019-0023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/icl-2019-0023

Dyzenhaus, David. “Kelsen, Heller and Schmitt: Paradigms of Sovereignty Thought.” Theoretical Inquiries in Law 16 (2015): 337–66. https://doi.org/10.1515/til-2015-104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/til-2015-104

Giltaij, Jacob. “Hermann Kantorowicz and Hans Kelsen: From Debating Legal Sociology to Constructing an International Legal Order.” History of European Ideas 48, no. 1 (2022): 112–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/01916599.2021.1898438. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01916599.2021.1898438

Górnisiewicz, Arkadiusz. “Dispute over the Guardian of the Constitution: Hans Kelsen, Carl Schmitt and the Weimar Case.” Politeja 18, no. 3(72) (2021): 193–214. https://doi.org/10.12797/politeja.18.2021.72.10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12797/Politeja.18.2021.72.10

Hailbronner, Michaela, and Stefan Martini. “The German Federal Constitutional Court.” In Comparative Constitutional Reasoning, edited by András Jakab, Arthur Dyevre, and Giulio Itzcovich, 356–93. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316084281.012

Hirschl, Ran. Towards Juristocracy: The Origins and Consequences of the New Constitutionalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004.

Kelsen, Hans. Pure Theory of Law. Clark, NJ: The Lawbook Exchange, 2005.

Kutay, Acar. “From Weimar to Ankara: Carl Schmitt, Sovereignty and Democracy.” Philosophy and Social Criticism 45, no. 6 (2019): 728–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453719830150. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453719830150

Lagi, Sara. “Hans Kelsen and the Austrian Constitutional Court (1918–1929).” Revista Co-herencia 9, no. 16 (2012): 273–95. https://doi.org/10.17230/co-herencia.9.16.10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17230/co-herencia.9.16.10

Lailam, Tanto. “Membangun Constitutional Morality Hakim Konstitusi di Indonesia.” Jurnal Penelitian Hukum De Jure 20, no. 4 (2020): 511–30. https://doi.org/10.30641/dejure.2020.V20.511-530. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30641/dejure.2020.V20.511-530

Lailam, Tanto. “Peran Mahkamah Konstitusi Federal Jerman Dalam Perlindungan Hak Fundamental Warga Negara Berdasarkan Kewenangan Pengaduan Konstitusional.” Jurnal HAM 13, no. 1 (2022): 65–80. https://doi.org/10.30641/ham.2022.13.65-80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30641/ham.2022.13.65-80

Lailam, Tanto. “Perbandingan Desain Pengujian Konstitusional Pada Mahkamah Konstitusi Federal Jerman dan Indonesia.” Arena Hukum: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum 16, no. 2 (2023): 274–301. https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.arenahukum.2023.01602.4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.arenahukum.2023.01602.4

Lailam, Tanto, Putri Anggia, and Nita Andrianti. “Proportionality Analysis in Competing Rights Cases: A Model from the German Federal Constitutional Court.” Petita: Jurnal Kajian Ilmu Hukum dan Syariah 8, no. 2 (2023). https://doi.org/10.22373/petita.v8i2.220. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22373/petita.v8i2.220

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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20956/halrev.v10i2.4844

Lailam, Tanto, and Nita Andrianti. “Legal Policy of Constitutional Complaints in Judicial Review: A Comparison of Germany, Austria, Hungary, and Indonesia.” Bestuur 11, no. 1 (2023): 75–94. https://doi.org/10.20961/bestuur.v11i1.70052. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20961/bestuur.v11i1.70052

Lailam, Tanto, and M. Lutfi Chakim. “A Proposal to Adopt Concrete Judicial Review in Indonesian Constitutional Court: A Study on the German Federal Constitutional Court Experiences.” Padjadjaran Jurnal Ilmu Hukum 10, no. 2 (2023): 148–71. https://doi.org/10.22304/pjih.v10n2.a1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22304/pjih.v10n2.a1

Leelapatana, Rawin. “The Kelsen-Schmitt Debate and the Use of Emergency Powers in Political Crises in Thailand.” PhD diss., University of Bristol, 2018.

Leelapatana, Rawin, and Abdurrachman Satrio Pratomo. “The Relationship between a Kelsenian Constitutional Court and an Entrenched National Ideology: Lessons from Thailand and Indonesia.” ICL Journal 14, no. 4 (2020): 497–521. https://doi.org/10.1515/icl-2020-0013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/icl-2020-0013

Marwiyah, Siti. “Construction of Ratio Decidendi Constitutional Judges to Maintain the Authority of the Indonesian Constitution.” In Proceedings of the International Conference on Environmental and Energy Policy (ICEEP 2021). Vol. 583 of Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 264–68. Atlantis Press, 2021. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.211014.057. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.211014.057

Meierhenrich, Jens, and Oliver Simons, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Carl Schmitt. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.

Palguna, I Dewa Gede. Pengaduan Konstitusional (Constitutional Complaint): Upaya Hukum Terhadap Pelanggaran Hak-Hak Konstitusional Warga Negara. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara, 2013.

Palguna, I Dewa Gede, Saldi Isra, and Pan Mohammad Faiz. The Constitutional Court and Human Rights Protection in Indonesia. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers, 2022.

Paulson, Stanley L. “Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt: Growing Discord, Culminating in the ‘Guardian’ Controversy of 1931.” In The Oxford Handbook of Carl Schmitt, edited by Jens Meierhenrich and Oliver Simons, 510–546. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.

Paulson, Stanley L. “Hans Kelsen on Legal Interpretation, Legal Cognition, and Legal Science.” Jurisprudence 10, no. 2 (2019): 188–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/20403313.2019.1604887. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/20403313.2019.1604887

Republik Indonesia. Naskah Komprehensif Perubahan Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945: Latar Belakang, Proses, dan Hasil Pembahasan 1999–2002 (Buku VI Kekuasaan Kehakiman). Jakarta: Sekretariat Jenderal dan Kepaniteraan Mahkamah Konstitusi, 2010.

Rigaux, François. “Hans Kelsen on International Law.” European Journal of International Law 9 (1998): 325–34. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/9.2.325. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/9.2.325

Roznai, Yaniv. “Introduction: Constitutional Courts in a 100-Years Perspective and a Proposal for a Hybrid Model of Judicial Review.” ICL Journal 14, no. 4 (2020): 355–77. https://doi.org/10.1515/icl-2020-0039. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/icl-2020-0039

Schmitz, Georg. “The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Austria 1918–1920.” Ratio Juris 16, no. 2 (2003): 240–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9337.00235. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9337.00235

Schmitt, Carl. Constitutional Theory. Durham: Duke University Press, 2008.

Schmitt, Carl. Der Hüter der Verfassung. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1996. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-48743-1

Scholz-Karl, Julia. “Behind the Theoretical Debate between Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt: The Nineteenth Century Constitutionalism and German Public Law.” UNIO - EU Law Journal 7, no. 2 (2021): 16–36. https://doi.org/10.21814/unio.7.2.3101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21814/unio.7.2.3101

Schupmann, Benjamin A. Carl Schmitt’s State and Constitutional Theory: A Critical Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198791614.001.0001

Satriawan, Iwan, Seokmin Lee, Septi Nur Wijayanti, and Beni Hidayat. “An Evaluation of the Selection Mechanism of Constitutional Judges in Indonesia and South Korea.” Padjadjaran Jurnal Ilmu Hukum 10, no. 1 (2023): 122–47. https://doi.org/10.22304/pjih.v10n1.a7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22304/pjih.v10n1.a7

Satriawan, Iwan, and Tanto Lailam. “Implikasi Mekanisme Seleksi Terhadap Independensi dan Integritas Hakim Konstitusi di Indonesia.” Jurnal IUS Kajian Hukum dan Keadilan 9, no. 1 (2021): 112–38. https://doi.org/10.29303/ius.v9i1.871. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29303/ius.v9i1.871

Solanes Mullor, Joan. “Spain, Judicial Independence, and Judges’ Freedom of Expression: Missing an Opportunity to Leverage the European Constitutional Shift?” European Constitutional Law Review 19, no. 2 (2023): 271–93. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019623000081. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019623000081

Tassopoulos, Ioannis A. “The Void Ab Initio Theory in Comparative Perspective: J Marshall, H Kelsen, and Beyond.” ICL Journal 17, no. 3 (2023): 213–32. https://doi.org/10.1515/icl-2023-0034. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/icl-2023-0034

Vagdoutis, Nikolaos. “Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt in Weimar: A Riddle of Political Constitutionalism.” PhD diss., University of Glasgow, 2018.

Verfassungsgerichtshof Österreich (The Constitutional Court of Austria). The Constitutional Court. Vienna: Constitutional Court, n.d.

Vinx, Lars. The Guardian of the Constitution: Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt on the Limits of Constitutional Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316136256

Vinx, Lars. Hans Kelsen’s Pure Theory of Law: Legality and Legitimacy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199227952.001.0001

Vinx, Lars. “Hans Kelsen and the Material Constitution of Democracy.” Jurisprudence 12, no. 4 (2021): 466–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/20403313.2021.1921493. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/20403313.2021.1921493

Voßkuhle, Andreas. “Multilevel Cooperation of the European Constitutional Courts: Der Europäische Verfassungsgerichtsverbund.” European Constitutional Law Review 6, no. 2 (2010): 175–98. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019610200020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019610200020

Wijayanti, Septi Nur, Lita Tyesta, Tanto Lailam, and Kelik Iswandi. “Progressive Legal Approaches of the Constitutional Justice Reasoning on Judicial Review Cases: Challenges or Opportunities?” Law Reform 21, no. 2 (2025): 219–40. https://doi.org/10.14710/lr.v21i2.66334. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14710/lr.v21i2.66334

Wijayanti, Septi Nur, Retno Saraswati, Lita Tyesta Addy Listya Wardhani, Kelik Iswandi, and Tanu Surana. “Constitutional Judges: What Powers Does the House of Representatives Have?” Jurnal Media Hukum 32, no. 1 (2025): 96–113. https://doi.org/10.18196/jmh.v32i1.23842. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18196/jmh.v32i1.23842

Yun, Jeong In. “Constitutional Review Complaint as an Evolution of the Kelsenian Model.” ICL Journal 14, no. 4 (2020): 423–46. https://doi.org/10.1515/icl-2020-0024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/icl-2020-0024

Zoelva, Hamdan. “Constitutional Complaint dan Constitutional Question dan Perlindungan Hak-Hak Konstitusional Warga Negara.” Jurnal Media Hukum 19, no. 1 (2012): 152–64.