Expert Asserts Constitutional Court Rulings are Final and Binding: Absolute Reference for State Institutional Law
Constitutional Law expert, Fahri Bachmid, has responded to the Jampidsus Circular Number B-1391/F/Fjp/04/2026, dated 20 April 2026, concerning the interpretation of Constitutional Court Decision No 28/PUU-XXIV/2026. According to Bachmid, the circular leaves room for institutions other than the Audit Board (BPK) to calculate state losses, despite the Constitutional Court having previously clarified this authority through Decision Number 28/PUU-XXIV/202 Ascending/2026.
He noted that the circular issued by Jampidsus is more of a non-authoritative opinion and lacks the necessary legal competence. “In this context, determining which Constitutional Court decisions apply and which do not is a matter where the prosecution is an interested party in the case; however, legally, they have no authority to create a constitutional interpretation as they desire. The Constitutional Court’s decision in case number 28/PUU-XXIV/2026 is a ‘binding precedent’ with ‘erga omnes’ effect. Scientifically and doctrinally, the Constitutional Court is the sole interpreter of the constitution,” Bachmid stated on Monday, 18 May 2026.
He emphasised that the Constitutional Court holds the highest constitutional authority to interpret the Constitution and to review laws against the Constitution. “The Constitutional Court’s decisions are final, binding, and serve as the absolute juridical and normative parameter and reference within the framework of constitutional rules and the legal relations of state institutions,” he added.
Fahri Bachmid further assessed that, legally, Constitutional Court Decision Number 31/PUU-X/2012 has been updated by subsequent rulings. Doctrinally, the principle of ‘lex posterior derogat legi priori’ applies, meaning that newer laws or regulations supersede or invalidate older ones. He argued that it is a constitutional necessity for the Court or other judicial bodies to dynamically adjust their stances on previous legal products to address ‘living law’ and the evolving legal needs within society. Furthermore, he noted that the constitutional basis for this authority is found in Article 24C paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, which affirms that the Constitutional Court has the authority to adjudicate at the first and final instance, with decisions that are final, to review laws against the Constitution.