CONSTITUTIONAL TORT AS A CONSTITUTIONAL COMPLAINT: RECONSTRUCTING GOVERNMENTAL UNLAWFUL ACTS REGULATION

A chorus of academics has echoed constitutional complaint as an expansion of the Constitutional Court’s jurisdiction to strengthen the protection of citizens. In this context, the proposal is hampered by the procedural barriers of constitutional amendment. Therefore, this research aims to propose a more viable alternative by reconstructing the existing State Administrative Courts’ governmental unlawful acts jurisdiction into a de facto constitutional complaint mechanism. Governmental unlawful acts cause of action is reconstructed by adopting certain aspects of constitutional tort in the United States as a point of comparison and inspiration. This doctrinal research adopts statutory, comparative, and conceptual approaches, using primary and secondary legal materials. The results show that reconstruction of State Administrative Courts’ governmental unlawful acts jurisdiction into a de facto constitutional complaint mechanism depends on four specific and crucial reforms to State Administrative Courts Law, the Governmental Administration Law, and the implementing regulations. First, the authority of State Administrative Courts covers factual actions and includes blocking the enforcement of written state administrative decisions. Second, an explicit statutory authorization should be provided for the state administrative court judges to use the 1945 Constitution as a standard of rseview. Third, there needs to be procedural safeguards to ensure legal certainty and consistency in constitutional interpretation. State Administrative Courts are obligated to give full effect to the Constitutional Court's interpretation whenever available and applicable to the case at hand, and to stay proceedings when a related case is pending at the Constitutional Court relevant to the case at hand. Lastly. Finally, existing damages regulations must be amended to ensure legal certainty and provide just relief. This prevents remedies from becoming symbolic rather than effective in stopping constitutional violations and wrongdoings.