Justice Without Explanation? The Normative Crisis of Judicial Reasoning in Indonesian Summary Judgments

Abstract

The obligation of judges to provide adequate legal reasoning is a fundamental element of court justice. In Indonesian judicial practice, however, summary and formulaic judgments remain common, particularly in lower courts. This paper examines the normative implications of minimalist judicial reasoning for court justice in Indonesia. Through doctrinal analysis of procedural law and selected court decisions, the study explores how abbreviated reasoning affects transparency, legal certainty, and the right of parties to understand judicial outcomes. The analysis suggests that while efficiency is often invoked to justify concise judgments, excessive reliance on standard reasoning undermines the deliberative character of adjudication. By situating judicial reasoning within the broader discourse of fair trial principles, the paper highlights a normative gap between formal procedural compliance and substantive justice. It argues that court justice is not solely determined by outcomes, but by the quality of justification offered by judges. The discussion raises questions about whether current judicial practices adequately reflect constitutional guarantees of due process and accountability.