'With rare exceptions, such as the courts headed by John Marshall and Earl Warren, it was not common until recently to explain the work-product of constitutional courts by focusing on their leadership. Now, however, a number of writers have begun to emphasize the importance of the chief justice in guiding courts to be bold or cautious, expansive or restrictive, in their constitutional decisions. With his extensive knowledge and with great judiciousness, Stefanus Hendrianto has examined the important role of chief justices of the Constitutional Court of Indonesia. He shows convincingly that leadership can indeed make a major difference in the emergence of constitutional doctrine, as he examines the work of the Court and compares it to similar courts elsewhere. This is an important work of comparative constitutional law and politics that will repay careful study.'

Donald L. Horowitz, Duke University, USA and author of Constitutional Change and Democracy in Indonesia

'This book is a major contribution to comparative constitutional studies: it provides a crisp and authoritative account of the early jurisprudence of the Indonesian Constitutional Court, a highly active and creative court operating in one of the world's largest democracies. It also offers a fascinating account of the role of Chief Justice Jimly Assidique, as the leader of that court, and in doing so makes an important contribution to broader debates about the role of constitutional judges - and different styles of constitutional judging - in the consolidation of constitutional democracy.'

Rosalind Dixon, UNSW Sydney, Australia

'This fascinating study of the Indonesian Constitutional Court introduces an entirely new concept for understanding judicial power: the judge as a heroic figure. Providing an exhaustive account of the Court's successes and failures, Hendrianto makes a powerful case for the role of judicial