Following the post-Soeharto constitutional reform from 1999 to 2002, the Indonesian Constitutional Court was established with powers, inter alia, to review the constitutionality of national legislation. The constitutional amendments also incorporated a constitutional Bill of Rights, which includes the right to be free from discrimination on any ground and the right to protection against discrimination under Article 28I(2) and the right to equality before the law under Article 28D(1). However, the Constitution does not specify an enumerated list of grounds against which discrimination is prohibited. This article examines a body of constitutional jurisprudence in Indonesia, an Asian civil law country with no formal system of precedent. It seeks to determine the extent to which the Indonesian Constitutional Court has protected the citizens' fundamental rights of equality and against discrimination. Through describing and analysing three court decisions on the principles of equality and non-discrimination, this article argues that the Indonesian Constitutional Court, in its early years of operation, took these principles seriously. Nevertheless, in its later decisions, the Court departed, albeit not explicitly, from its earlier ruling by relying on ‘the belief in One God’ and ‘the religious values consideration’ under Articles 29(1) and 28J of the Constitution to restrict the fundamental rights of equality and non-discrimination. Consequently, the Court has unjustifiably held that discrimination is not prohibited insofar as it is in accord with religious orthodoxy.

中文翻译：

---

印度尼西亚宪法法院的歧视司法化

在 1999 年至 2002 年苏哈托之后的宪法改革之后，印度尼西亚宪法法院成立，除其他外，它有权审查国家立法的合宪性。宪法修正案还纳入了宪法权利法案，其中包括不受任何理由的歧视的权利和第 28I(2) 条规定的免受歧视的权利以及第 28D(1) 条规定的法律面前人人平等的权利. 但是，《宪法》没有详细列出禁止歧视的理由。本文考察了印度尼西亚的宪法判例体系，印度尼西亚是一个没有正式判例制度的亚洲大陆法系国家。它旨在确定印度尼西亚宪法法院保护公民的程度 平等和反对歧视的基本权利。通过描述和分析三个法院关于平等和非歧视原则的判决，本文认为印度尼西亚宪法法院在其运作的早期就​​认真对待了这些原则。然而，在其后来的判决中，法院根据宪法第 29 条第 1 款和第 28J 条依据“对独一上帝的信仰”和“宗教价值观考虑”来限制其先前的裁决，尽管没有明确地表明这一点。平等和不歧视的基本权利。因此，法院毫无道理地认为，只要符合宗教正统观念，就不会禁止歧视。通过描述和分析三个法院关于平等和非歧视原则的判决，本文认为印度尼西亚宪法法院在其运作的早期就​​认真对待了这些原则。然而，在其后来的判决中，法院根据宪法第 29 条第 1 款和第 28J 条依据“对独一上帝的信仰”和“宗教价值观考虑”来限制其先前的裁决，尽管没有明确地表明这一点。平等和不歧视的基本权利。因此，法院毫无道理地认为，只要符合宗教正统观念，就不会禁止歧视。通过描述和分析三个法院关于平等和非歧视原则的判决，本文认为印度尼西亚宪法法院在其运作的早期就​​认真对待了这些原则。然而，在其后来的判决中，法院根据宪法第 29 条第 1 款和第 28J 条依据“对独一上帝的信仰”和“宗教价值观考虑”来限制其先前的裁决，尽管没有明确地表明这一点。平等和不歧视的基本权利。因此，法院毫无道理地认为，只要符合宗教正统观念，就不会禁止歧视。在其后来的裁决中，尽管没有明确地表明，法院根据宪法第 29 条第 1 款和第 28J 条依靠“信仰独一神”和“宗教价值观考虑”来限制基本权利平等和不歧视。因此，法院毫无道理地认为，只要符合宗教正统观念，就不会禁止歧视。在其后来的裁决中，尽管没有明确地表明，法院根据宪法第 29 条第 1 款和第 28J 条依靠“信仰独一神”和“宗教价值观考虑”来限制基本权利平等和不歧视。因此，法院毫无道理地认为，只要符合宗教正统观念，就不会禁止歧视。