The tyranny of majority against the minority is prevented or minimised by constitutional safeguards enforced primarily by the court. This is one of the reasons why Malaysia and Indonesia adopted the doctrine of constitutional supremacy when they achieved independence in 1957 and in 1945 respectively. This paper compares constitutional adjudication as one of the mechanisms of constitutional democracy in both countries. In spite of their geographical proximity and having similar cultural and historical heritages, the two countries have fundamentally different l constitutions. Malaysia follows the common law model where superior courts adjudicate constitutional issues while Indonesia has adopted Kelsenian model by establishing a separate new court, namely the Constitutional Court. This is a qualitative research that examines the role and power of constitutional adjudications institutions of both countries. The development and experiences of the institutions in both countries not only shed light on constitutional democracy of the two countries, but also influences the process of democratic consolidation in the region.