SUMMARY
There are differences in the characteristics of judicial review in the Supreme Court and in the Constitutional Court in terms of the object being tested and the use of test stones that are indeed by the authority granted by the 1945 Constitution. The principle of audi et alteram partem is a general principle in the study of law, so the judicial review process in the Supreme Court which is only one-way and closed should not be carried out. This article analyzes and explores the original intent of granting judicial review authority to regional regulations at the Supreme Court. This article is normative legal research conducted by examining legal materials (library studies) or secondary data. The original intent the granting of judicial review authority to the Supreme Court is intended to foster checks and balances between various high state institutions. In addition, the granting of the right of judicial review is intended to enforce checks and balances between the three branches of power.