Through the momentum of the third amendment of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia which was passed in 2001, Indonesia has officially adopted a dualistic judicial review system. Under such system, the authority to conduct judicial review is divided/spread to the two judicial organs, each with its own scope of review; namely, the Supreme Court/Mahkamah Agung reviews regulations below the level of Law (Undang-undang), while the Constitutional Court/Mahkamah Konstitusi reviews the same against the Constitution (constitutional review). Seen from the theoretical and practical perspective adhered to by states which adopt the formation of the Constitutional Court (centered judicial review model), the system adopted by Indonesia is uncommon, and moreover it could be considered as an error in designing the judicial review system. This is in view of the fact that in states which have a Constitutional Court, the authority to conduct judicial review is concentrated / centered upon the Constitutional Court. Such division of authority under the two review regime (legal review and constitutional review) as practiced by Indonesia is not known (except for South Korea), neither in states which use the centralized judicial review model nor in those which use the distribution judicial review model. Such distribution is bound to disrupt the judicial review itself, as the authority to review is implemented by two different institutions with different review standard. Accordingly, in the final part of this research the author puts forward the proposition to centralize the authority to conduct judicial review in the Constitutional Court thus putting an end to the practice of dualistic judicial review which has been proven to be problematic and ensuring that the judicial review system in Indonesia can be reconstructed and placed upon the correct theoretical and practical basis.

中文翻译：

---

印度尼西亚司法审查的二元性：问题与解决方案

在2001年通过的印度尼西亚共和国1945年宪法第三次修正案的推动下，印度尼西亚正式采用了二元司法审查制度。在这种制度下，司法审查的权力被划分/分散到两个司法机关，每个司法机关都有自己的审查范围；即，最高法院/Mahkamah Agung 审查法律（Undang-undang）以下的法规，而宪法法院/Mahkamah Konstitusi 则根据宪法审查同样的规定（宪法审查）。从采用宪法法院（中央司法审查模式）的国家所坚持的理论和实践来看，印度尼西亚采用的制度并不常见，而且可以认为是司法审查制度设计的错误。这是因为在拥有宪法法院的州，进行司法审查的权力集中/集中在宪法法院。印度尼西亚实行的两种审查制度（法律审查和宪法审查）下的权限划分是未知的（韩国除外），无论是采用集中式司法审查模式的国家，还是采用分布式司法审查模式的国家都没有. 这种分配势必会扰乱司法审查本身，因为审查权是由两个不同审查标准的不同机构来执行的。因此，