I'm confused as to the role of the Pancasila in the Constitution. Is it just a moral guideline, or would the Constitutional Court actually apply the Pancasila in Judicial Review? I'm just wondering whether the Pancasila has the "basic principles" in it that the Constitution needs to adhere to.
Sorry for the random comment, I'm a Law student from Austria thinking about writing a JD thesis that would deal with Indonesian Law.
Sincerely,
Savina
well, the pancasila is on the preamble of the constitution. i am skeptical that being in the preamble gives it the legal force which are stronger than the articles. i dont think that in practical decision, the constitutional court may directly refer to pancasila. thus i think pancasila could be relied upon as the purpose and objective of the nation -- as a teleology, which could be taken into account when the grammatical interpretation of the constitution is silent or unclear in adressing a particular issue. but how does this fit into constitutional interpretation method, e.g. with regards to the hierarchy of interpretation, is not clear.
however, recently there has been a discussion about the 'heart' of the constitution.
Commenting by HaloScan
