The Indonesian Court and Justice Review (ICJR) is a peer-reviewed academic journal committed to the critical examination of judicial systems, legal institutions, and court practices in Indonesia and comparative jurisdictions. With an emphasis on promoting transparency, fairness, efficiency, and accountability in judicial processes, the journal provides an intellectual platform for the study of how courts contribute to justice in both theory and practice. The journal aims to foster high-quality interdisciplinary scholarship that explores the complex roles of courts in upholding the rule of law, human rights, and democratic values within Indonesia’s evolving legal and political landscape. It addresses both formal and informal judicial mechanisms and engages with the real-world implications of judicial decision-making, access to justice, legal pluralism, and the tension between state law and local/customary law. Given Indonesia’s multifaceted legal system—featuring civil law traditions, Islamic jurisprudence, customary (adat) law, and modern constitutionalism—the journal invites innovative and critical research that examines the performance, independence, legitimacy, and transformative capacity of courts at all levels, from local religious courts to the Constitutional Court and Supreme Court.
The Network of Indonesian Legal and Justice Researchers
All writings published in this journal are the personal views of the authors and do not represent the views of this journal or the authors’ affiliated institutions. Authors retain copyrights without any restriction under the license of Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
Selective Equality Before the Law? Sentencing Disparities and Court Justice in Indonesian Corruption Cases
Equality before the law constitutes a core principle of court justice, yet sentencing disparities continue to provoke public debate in Indonesia’s corruption cases. This paper examines how sentencing practices reflect and challenge the normative commitment to equality in criminal adjudication. Through doctrinal analysis of criminal law principles and comparative reading of selected corruption verdicts, the study explores variations in sentencing severity across cases with comparable legal and factual circumstances. The analysis suggests that judicial discretion, while legally permitted, often lacks sufficiently articulated justification, creating perceptions of unequal treatment. By focusing on sentencing as a site of justice evaluation, the paper highlights how court justice is shaped by consistency, proportionality, and transparency. It raises normative questions about the limits of judicial discretion and the role of sentencing guidelines in reinforcing public confidence in the criminal justice system.
Copyright (c) 2025 Ridwan Arifin, Ikram Nur Fuady, Fadhel Arjuna Adinda, Shofriya Qonitatin Abidah (Author) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
When Final is Not Fair: Court Justice and the Doctrine of Finality in Constitutional Court Decisions
Decisions of the Indonesian Constitutional Court are constitutionally defined as final and binding. While this doctrine aims to ensure legal certainty, it also raises concerns regarding court justice, particularly when decisions generate persistent controversy. This paper examines how the principle of finality interacts with notions of fairness and accountability in constitutional adjudication. Using normative constitutional analysis and selected Constitutional Court cases, the study explores situations in which final decisions have been criticized for limited reasoning, procedural irregularities, or significant societal impact. The analysis suggests that absolute finality may constrain opportunities for correction and deliberation, especially in cases involving fundamental rights. By examining finality as a normative choice rather than a neutral rule, the paper highlights its implications for court justice. It invites reconsideration of whether constitutional justice requires mechanisms for institutional self-correction, even within a system that prioritizes legal certainty.
Copyright (c) 2025 Martin Sidabutar, Jane Carolina Gunawan (Author) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Justice Without Explanation? The Normative Crisis of Judicial Reasoning in Indonesian Summary Judgments
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.
Copyright (c) 2025 Jarek Solen, Mohd Iskardar Muda Ahmad Fikri (Author) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Procedural Justice on Paper, Substantive Injustice in Practice? Pretrial Rulings (Praperadilan) and Rights Protection
Pretrial proceedings (praperadilan) are designed to safeguard individual rights against arbitrary law enforcement actions. In practice, however, pretrial rulings in Indonesia have produced inconsistent interpretations and outcomes. This paper examines the role of praperadilan in shaping court justice within the criminal justice process. Using normative analysis of criminal procedure law and selected pretrial decisions, the study explores how judges interpret procedural safeguards such as lawful arrest, detention, and suspect determination. The findings suggest that expansive or restrictive interpretations of praperadilan jurisdiction significantly affect access to judicial protection. By analyzing pretrial adjudication as a form of rights-based justice, the paper highlights tensions between procedural legality and substantive fairness. It argues that inconsistent judicial approaches risk transforming praperadilan into a formalistic ritual rather than an effective mechanism for court justice.
Copyright (c) 2025 Corina Putri Andhika, Johan Elian Varko (Author) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Between Morality and Legality: Court Justice and Judicial Interpretation in Blasphemy Cases
Blasphemy cases in Indonesia present a complex intersection between criminal law, religious norms, and constitutional guarantees. Judicial handling of such cases has generated debate regarding impartiality and court justice. This paper examines how judges interpret blasphemy provisions and the implications of such interpretation for judicial neutrality. Through doctrinal analysis of statutory provisions and selected blasphemy judgments, the study explores how moral and religious considerations are incorporated into legal reasoning. The analysis suggests that judicial interpretation often extends beyond textual legality, blurring the boundary between legal judgment and moral evaluation. By examining blasphemy adjudication as a test case for court justice, the paper highlights the challenges faced by courts in pluralistic societies. It raises broader questions about the role of judges in balancing societal values with constitutional principles of legality and equality before the law.
Copyright (c) 2025 Arvan Dalia, Sebastian Nayla Coren (Author) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Human Rights in the Digital Age: The Indonesian Judiciary's Response to Internet Censorship and Privacy Laws
The digital transformation of society has introduced new challenges to the protection of human rights in Indonesia, particularly concerning internet censorship, privacy, and freedom of expression. This study explores how the Indonesian judiciary has responded to these emerging legal and ethical dilemmas through case rulings and constitutional review. Focusing on key decisions involving the Electronic Information and Transactions (EIT) Law, data surveillance, and content regulation, the research assesses whether courts have served as defenders of digital rights or enablers of state control. Using doctrinal analysis and comparative jurisprudence, the findings reveal a cautious and often inconsistent approach by the judiciary. While some rulings affirm the right to privacy and digital expression, others uphold government-imposed restrictions in the name of public morality, national security, or religious values. The lack of a comprehensive data protection regime until recently further complicates judicial interpretations. The study argues that the judiciary’s role is critical in setting normative boundaries in the digital realm, but current jurisprudence reflects an underdeveloped rights-based framework. The novelty of this research lies in its focus on how constitutional and administrative courts grapple with 21st-century rights issues in a legal system shaped by rapid technological and political change. The study contributes to global debates on digital governance, legal adaptation, and judicial protection of rights in the digital era.
digital rights, internet censorship, privacy law, judiciary, Indonesia
Copyright (c) 2025 Wahyu Nandang Irmawan, Arif Bima Pratama, Mai Lan Chi, Vann Kosal Rith (Author) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Between Justice and Development: How the Indonesian Courts Are Handling Land Disputes in the Face of Industrial Expansion
Land disputes in Indonesia have intensified with rapid industrial expansion, infrastructure development, and agribusiness growth, often pitting local communities against state-backed corporate interests. This study analyzes how Indonesian courts adjudicate land conflicts, particularly those involving indigenous communities, smallholders, and rural populations affected by development projects. Employing case analysis, field observation, and interviews with litigants, judges, and legal aid providers, the research assesses the judiciary’s capacity to uphold land rights and environmental justice amid developmental pressures. Findings reveal a systemic bias favoring formal land title holders—typically corporations or state entities—over customary or informal land claims. Procedural barriers, lack of legal recognition for indigenous tenure, and limited judicial expertise on land law further disadvantage vulnerable claimants. While some progressive rulings exist, their impact remains limited due to weak enforcement and institutional fragmentation. This study’s novelty lies in its intersectional analysis of land, law, and development, offering a critical lens on how legal institutions mediate conflicts in resource governance. It argues that unless the judiciary is empowered and reoriented toward distributive justice, courts risk becoming instruments of dispossession rather than protectors of rights. The study contributes to wider debates on sustainable development, legal pluralism, and judicial independence in resource-rich developing countries.
land disputes, development, indigenous rights, legal pluralism, Indonesian courts
Copyright (c) 2025 Asmarani Ramli, Aprila Niravita, Suhadi Suhadi (Author) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Judicial Reforms in Indonesia's Local Courts: Improving Access to Justice or Perpetuating Inequities?
Judicial reform in Indonesia has long focused on central institutions, yet the performance of local courts remains a key determinant of citizens' everyday access to justice. This study investigates whether recent judicial reform initiatives—such as digitalization, case tracking systems, and integrated services—have improved the accessibility, fairness, and responsiveness of local courts. Using qualitative fieldwork in several district courts, combined with interviews and policy analysis, the research explores the impact of reform on marginalized communities, including rural populations and low-income litigants. While technological innovations have enhanced administrative efficiency and transparency, findings suggest that socio-economic and geographic disparities continue to shape unequal access to legal remedies. Key barriers include digital illiteracy, language limitations, and limited legal aid availability. Furthermore, local courts often reflect broader power imbalances, with elites receiving more favorable treatment. The novelty of this study lies in its localized, ground-level evaluation of judicial reform, highlighting how national-level policy often fails to account for structural inequities on the ground. The research argues that meaningful access to justice requires not only institutional modernization but also a justice system that actively addresses social inequality. This study contributes to ongoing discussions on legal empowerment and inclusive justice reform in decentralized legal systems.
access to justice, judicial reform, local courts, legal inequality, Indonesia
Copyright (c) 2025 Andi Perangin Angin, Ahmad Fahruddin (Author) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
The 2022 Criminal Code Revision: A Step Forward or a Backslide for Civil Liberties in Indonesia?
The 2022 revision of Indonesia’s Criminal Code (KUHP) represents the most comprehensive overhaul of the country's penal law since independence. While proponents argue that the revision modernizes the legal system, critics have raised concerns over provisions that may curtail civil liberties, criminalize morality, and restrict freedom of expression. This study evaluates the implications of the new Criminal Code on fundamental rights, using a doctrinal approach supported by constitutional analysis and international human rights benchmarks. Key provisions analyzed include articles related to cohabitation, insults to the president, blasphemy, and protest regulation. Findings suggest that, despite attempts to harmonize customary norms and formal law, the Code introduces vague and overly broad clauses that could be misused to silence dissent and enforce moral conformity. Furthermore, the legislative process, marked by limited public consultation and swift ratification, raises questions about democratic legitimacy. The study argues that the 2022 revision reflects a broader trend of conservative legalism in Indonesia, where legal reform is used not to expand freedoms but to reinforce state control. The novelty lies in its comprehensive legal-constitutional analysis of the revised KUHP in light of democratic regression and civil rights. This research contributes to global conversations on the balance between legal reform, cultural pluralism, and the protection of civil liberties.
criminal code, civil liberties, legal reform, freedom of expression, Indonesia
Copyright (c) 2025 Muhtar Agung Kusuma, Ahmad Zikri (Author) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Religious Minorities and the Indonesian Judiciary: Legal Protection or Institutionalized Discrimination?
Indonesia’s constitutional commitment to religious freedom often stands in contrast to the lived experiences of religious minorities, particularly in the context of judicial processes. This study critically examines how the Indonesian judiciary has handled cases involving religious minority groups, focusing on whether the courts serve as protectors of minority rights or inadvertently reinforce systemic discrimination. Through an analysis of key court decisions, including blasphemy cases and disputes over places of worship, the research explores legal reasoning, procedural fairness, and alignment with international human rights standards. Findings reveal a pattern in which the judiciary, under pressure from dominant social and political forces, frequently prioritizes public order over the protection of minority rights. Legal provisions such as the Blasphemy Law (UU No. 1/PNPS/1965) are often applied broadly, enabling selective prosecution and legitimizing societal intolerance. While some rulings affirm constitutional guarantees, inconsistent application of the law undermines trust in the judiciary's impartiality. The novelty of this study lies in its empirical and doctrinal analysis of judicial treatment of religious minorities, highlighting institutional and normative challenges. This research contributes to debates on religious pluralism, constitutionalism, and the role of courts in protecting vulnerable populations in a plural society.
religious minorities, judicial discrimination, blasphemy law, religious freedom, Indonesia
Copyright (c) 2025 Sophie Brown, Grace Evans (Author) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Climate Change and Environmental Law: The Indonesian Court’s Role in Enforcing Sustainable Development
As climate change intensifies environmental degradation in Indonesia, courts are increasingly called upon to adjudicate disputes involving ecological harm, regulatory compliance, and government accountability. This study examines the role of Indonesian courts in promoting sustainable development through environmental law enforcement, with a focus on recent landmark decisions involving deforestation, pollution, and climate-related litigation. Using a combination of doctrinal analysis and case review, the research assesses how judicial bodies interpret environmental protection laws, apply the precautionary and intergenerational equity principles, and balance environmental concerns with economic development agendas. The findings demonstrate that courts have occasionally issued progressive rulings—holding corporations and government agencies accountable—but enforcement remains uneven due to legal ambiguities, lack of technical expertise, and institutional limitations. The novelty of this study lies in its analysis of climate-related jurisprudence within a developing country context, offering insights into how judicial activism can contribute to environmental governance. The research also identifies structural barriers that hinder judicial effectiveness, including limited access to environmental evidence, procedural hurdles, and weak implementation mechanisms. It concludes by proposing reforms to enhance the judiciary’s capacity in climate adjudication and strengthen legal frameworks for environmental protection in Indonesia.
environmental law, climate change, sustainable development, judicial role, Indonesia
Copyright (c) 2025 Zulfikar Zulfikar, Harrison Wood (Author) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
The New Face of Corruption Trials in Indonesia: Political Influence, Public Perception, and Judicial Accountability
Corruption trials in Indonesia have long been viewed as both a test and a symbol of judicial integrity. In recent years, however, shifts in political dynamics and public sentiment have reshaped the way corruption cases are prosecuted and adjudicated. This study investigates the changing nature of corruption trials in Indonesia by examining recent high-profile cases, the role of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), and the judiciary’s response under increased political scrutiny. Using case study analysis, media reviews, and legal documentation, the research explores how political influence and public pressure affect prosecutorial discretion, judicial decisions, and institutional accountability. The findings reveal a growing concern over selective enforcement, perceived leniency toward political elites, and the weakening of anti-corruption institutions. Public trust in judicial outcomes is increasingly contingent on transparency and the appearance of impartiality, yet courts often struggle to maintain credibility in politically charged contexts. The novelty of this study lies in its integrated analysis of legal processes, political pressure, and societal expectations. It argues that restoring public confidence in corruption trials requires not only institutional reform but also judicial courage and systemic insulation from partisan influence. The study contributes to comparative discussions on judicial accountability in transitional democracies.
corruption trials, political influence, judicial accountability, KPK, Indonesia
Copyright (c) 2025 Ridwan Arifin, Auliya Rochman, Ayon Diniyanto, Rizki Sulthoni (Author) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
The Impact of the Omnibus Law on Indonesia's Judicial System: Efficiency or Erosion of Legal Protections?
The Omnibus Law on Job Creation, enacted in 2020 and amended in 2023, was presented as a transformative reform aimed at streamlining bureaucracy and improving Indonesia’s investment climate. However, its far-reaching legislative changes have also triggered concerns about the erosion of legal protections, including implications for the judicial system. This study critically examines the legal and institutional impact of the Omnibus Law on judicial procedures, labor dispute resolution, and environmental adjudication. Using a doctrinal analysis combined with policy review and expert interviews, the research investigates whether the pursuit of administrative efficiency compromises procedural justice and judicial independence. The findings suggest that while the Omnibus Law reduces regulatory complexity, it also narrows avenues for legal challenge, limits public participation, and accelerates processes in ways that may bypass substantive review. The judiciary’s role is further constrained by shifting legal standards and reduced discretion in certain sectors. The novelty of this research lies in its legal-institutional assessment of judicial capacity post-Omnibus reform. The study contributes to broader debates on deregulation, rule of law, and access to justice in developing democracies. It argues that true efficiency must be balanced with robust safeguards to ensure that economic reforms do not weaken the judiciary’s role as a check on executive and legislative overreach.
Omnibus Law, judicial system, legal reform, efficiency, legal protections, Indonesia
Copyright (c) 2025 Muhammad Fajri, Ibrahim Nur Cahyo (Author) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Legalizing Defamation or Protecting Free Speech? The Indonesian Court’s Rulings on Digital Libel in the Age of Social Media
As digital communication becomes increasingly central to public discourse, courts in Indonesia face growing pressure to balance the right to free speech with protections against defamation, particularly in online settings. This study examines judicial decisions related to digital libel, especially under the controversial Electronic Information and Transactions (EIT) Law, which has been criticized for its vague definitions and potential to criminalize dissent. Using case law analysis and doctrinal review, the research assesses how courts interpret the boundaries between expression, public interest, and reputational harm in the age of social media. The findings reveal a judicial pattern that often prioritizes social order and morality over individual rights, resulting in convictions that may stifle legitimate criticism and public participation. While some rulings attempt to incorporate constitutional protections of freedom of expression, inconsistencies in judicial reasoning and the discretionary use of the EIT Law continue to create legal uncertainty. This study argues that the current jurisprudence risks normalizing the criminalization of speech, particularly when used by state actors against critics and journalists. The novelty of this research lies in its focus on digital-era defamation from a rights-based perspective, highlighting the tension between outdated legal frameworks and emerging digital realities. Policy and judicial reform are urgently needed to ensure that defamation law protects reputations without undermining democratic freedoms.
defamation, free speech, digital rights, EIT Law, Indonesian courts
Copyright (c) 2025 Muhammad Azil Maskur, Ridwan Arifin, Benny Sumardiana (Author) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
The Indonesian Constitutional Court and the 2024 Presidential Election: A New Role in Electoral Integrity?
The 2024 Presidential Election in Indonesia has positioned the Constitutional Court as a pivotal institution in safeguarding electoral integrity. Historically tasked with resolving electoral disputes, the Court’s expanded involvement in pre-election processes, including candidate eligibility and the interpretation of constitutional requirements, has raised critical questions about its neutrality, legitimacy, and institutional boundaries. This study analyzes the evolving role of the Constitutional Court in the 2024 electoral context, particularly its controversial ruling on age requirements for presidential and vice-presidential candidates. Employing a legal-political analysis, this research examines court decisions, political discourse, and media framing to understand how judicial interpretations affect public trust and the democratic process. The findings suggest a shift in the Court’s function—from a post-election arbiter to a proactive political actor—creating tensions between legal reasoning and perceived political alignment. While some decisions have contributed to legal clarity, others have sparked accusations of partisanship and judicial activism. The study highlights the broader implications of this trend for the separation of powers, rule of law, and democratic consolidation in Indonesia. The novelty lies in its timely analysis of the 2024 election as a legal stress test for the Court’s institutional credibility. It offers recommendations to reinforce judicial independence and electoral accountability in future cycles.
Constitutional Court, 2024 election, judicial neutrality, electoral integrity, Indonesia
Copyright (c) 2025 Muhammad Asmawi, Amiludin Amiludin (Author) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Judicial Independence in Indonesia Amidst the Rise of Political Populism: A Post-Pandemic Dilemma
Judicial independence is a foundational principle of democratic governance, yet it faces increasing threats in many parts of the world—including Indonesia—amid the resurgence of political populism. This study examines how the rise of populist narratives and post-pandemic political consolidation affect the independence of the judiciary in Indonesia. By analyzing political discourse, court decisions in politically sensitive cases, and institutional developments since the COVID-19 pandemic, the research identifies trends of politicization, erosion of checks and balances, and public distrust toward judicial institutions. The findings reveal a growing pattern where populist actors frame the judiciary as an elite obstacle to the "will of the people," thereby undermining its legitimacy. Moreover, executive influence over judicial appointments and budgetary controls further weakens institutional autonomy. The pandemic has exacerbated these dynamics, with emergency legislation and fast-tracked policies often bypassing judicial scrutiny. The novelty of this research lies in its intersectional analysis of judicial independence, populism, and pandemic-era governance. It contributes to both the Indonesian and global discourse on democratic backsliding by highlighting how structural and discursive tactics can be used to constrain judicial authority. The study calls for renewed safeguards—legal, institutional, and cultural—to protect judicial independence in the face of shifting political climates.
judicial independence, political populism, democratic backsliding, post-pandemic governance, Indonesia
Copyright (c) 2025 Andry Wikra Wardhana Mamonto, Firdaus Arifin, Eko Nuriyatman (Author) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Protecting Children in the Judicial Process: Is the Indonesian Legal System Child-Friendly?
Ensuring child-friendly justice is a fundamental component of a rights-based legal system. In Indonesia, while legislative reforms—such as the Juvenile Justice System Law (Law No. 11/2012)—aim to protect children's rights during legal proceedings, implementation gaps persist. This study evaluates the extent to which the Indonesian legal system upholds child protection principles in criminal and civil judicial processes. Drawing on case analysis, field observations in child courts, and interviews with judges, lawyers, and child protection agencies, the research assesses procedural safeguards, restorative justice practices, and institutional support for child litigants. The findings indicate that although progress has been made in establishing special courts and diverting children from detention, significant challenges remain: lack of trained personnel, inadequate victim support systems, and limited awareness among law enforcement. Furthermore, the adversarial nature of courtrooms often fails to accommodate the psychological needs of children, especially in sensitive cases like abuse or custody disputes. This study’s novelty lies in its empirical grounding and child-centered approach, offering a multidimensional evaluation of the justice system’s responsiveness to children’s rights. It contributes to the broader discussion on legal reform by emphasizing the need for systemic changes in judicial attitudes, courtroom procedures, and inter-agency coordination. The study concludes with policy recommendations aimed at strengthening child-sensitive justice in Indonesia.
child protection, juvenile justice, child-friendly courts, legal reform, Indonesia
Copyright (c) 2025 Rasdi Rasdi, Anis Widyawati (Author) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
The Dualism of Court Institutions: Challenges in Harmonizing the National Legal System
Indonesia’s judiciary is characterized by institutional dualism, with multiple court jurisdictions—general, religious, military, administrative—operating under a decentralized and often fragmented legal framework. This structural dualism presents ongoing challenges in achieving coherence, consistency, and legal unity. This study explores the implications of such institutional fragmentation for legal harmonization and judicial efficiency. Through a doctrinal and comparative legal analysis, combined with field interviews and policy reviews, the research investigates areas where overlapping jurisdiction, conflicting procedural norms, and divergent judicial training contribute to inconsistency in legal interpretation and public confusion. The findings show that, although the integration of judicial administration under the Supreme Court was a step toward unification, substantive harmonization remains elusive. This has led to jurisdictional conflicts, especially in areas such as family law, land disputes, and administrative oversight. The novelty of the study lies in its critical appraisal of judicial dualism from both structural and functional perspectives. It argues that harmonization efforts must go beyond administrative integration and address deeper issues of legal culture, normative hierarchy, and cross-jurisdictional jurisprudence. This research offers recommendations for improving coordination across courts, standardizing procedural rules, and fostering a more unified national legal identity. As Indonesia continues to develop its legal infrastructure, addressing judicial dualism is vital to enhancing legal certainty and access to justice.
judicial dualism, legal harmonization, legal system, court integration, Indonesia
Copyright (c) 2025 Fadhel Arjuna Adinda (Author) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
The Effectiveness of the Judicial Commission in Upholding Judicial Integrity: Between Expectations and Reality
The Judicial Commission of Indonesia was established to promote integrity and accountability within the judiciary. Despite its constitutional mandate, the Commission's effectiveness remains a subject of contention. This study investigates the performance of the Judicial Commission in addressing ethical violations, reviewing judicial conduct, and maintaining public trust in the judicial system. Drawing from institutional reports, case data, and expert interviews, the research examines the gap between the Commission’s legal authority and its operational capacity. Findings reveal that while the Commission has received thousands of public complaints, its ability to enforce sanctions is limited by legal ambiguities, resistance from judicial institutions, and restricted investigatory powers. The Constitutional Court’s decisions narrowing the Commission’s authority further weaken its oversight function. The study underscores a persistent mismatch between public expectations and the institutional constraints the Commission faces. The novelty lies in its critical institutional assessment post-reform, highlighting the need to redefine the Commission’s role within the broader judicial governance framework. This study contributes to the discourse on judicial accountability by exploring how independent oversight bodies operate within constrained legal-political environments. It also offers concrete recommendations to enhance the Commission’s legitimacy, legal mandate, and cooperation with the Supreme Court, ensuring a more effective system of judicial discipline in Indonesia.
judicial integrity, oversight, Judicial Commission, accountability, Indonesia
Copyright (c) 2025 Achmad Irham Musyaffar, David Hadiputro (Author) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Sustaining Judicial Reform: An Evaluation of the National Action Plan for Judicial Reform 2020–2025
Judicial reform in Indonesia has long been a strategic priority to enhance transparency, accountability, and public trust in the justice system. The National Action Plan for Judicial Reform 2020–2025 (Rencana Aksi Nasional Reformasi Peradilan) marks the latest institutional effort to address persistent issues such as corruption, inefficiency, and lack of access to justice. This study evaluates the implementation and effectiveness of the Action Plan, focusing on its core pillars: institutional strengthening, case management reform, integrity-building, and public access. Using a qualitative methodology, including policy analysis, interviews with judicial stakeholders, and reviews of implementation reports, the study finds that while the Plan has brought procedural improvements—such as digitalization and case tracking systems—substantive reform outcomes remain uneven. Key challenges include weak inter-agency coordination, limited political commitment, and a lack of independent oversight. Moreover, external pressures, such as political dynamics and budget constraints, have diluted reform momentum. The novelty of this study lies in its mid-term evaluation of a state-driven reform agenda in a hybrid democratic-legal setting. It argues that sustaining judicial reform requires not only institutional strategies but also civic engagement, judicial leadership, and regulatory coherence. This research contributes to broader regional discussions on justice sector reform in emerging democracies and provides policy recommendations for enhancing the effectiveness and sustainability of reform initiatives in Indonesia.
judicial reform, Indonesia, institutional evaluation, legal policy, access to justice
Copyright (c) 2025 Firzha Amartha Dewi (Author) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Constitutional Rights of Citizens and State Power Limits: Perspectives from the Constitutional Court
The Indonesian Constitutional Court plays a pivotal role in interpreting the boundaries between state authority and the constitutional rights of its citizens. This study investigates how the Court has shaped the balance between individual rights and state power through its rulings, particularly in cases involving freedom of expression, religious rights, and state security. Employing a doctrinal approach combined with case analysis, the research explores the Court's reasoning in resolving tensions between competing constitutional values. The findings demonstrate that the Court often positions itself as a mediator between constitutional guarantees and the realities of political governance. While some rulings have expanded civil liberties, others reflect a deferential stance toward state power, particularly in contexts involving public order or national unity. This duality raises important questions about the Court's long-term role in consolidating democratic values and protecting minority rights. The novelty of this study lies in its systematic assessment of the Court’s jurisprudence on rights limitations, offering insights into the evolving nature of constitutional interpretation in Indonesia. As debates on authoritarianism, pluralism, and civil liberties intensify, understanding how courts delineate the limits of state power becomes increasingly crucial.
constitutional rights, state power, Constitutional Court, civil liberties, Indonesia
Copyright (c) 2024 Rodiyah Rodiyah, Zidney Ilma Faadza, Moh. Imam Gusthomi (Author) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Public Pressure and Judicial Independence: The Influence on High-Profile Court Rulings
Judicial independence is a fundamental pillar of democratic governance, yet courts are not immune to external pressures—particularly in high-profile cases that attract public and media scrutiny. This study explores the extent to which public opinion, media framing, and political discourse influence judicial behavior in Indonesia. Focusing on a selection of high-profile criminal and constitutional cases, the research analyzes court decisions, media coverage, and public reactions to assess whether and how judges respond to societal pressures. Drawing from legal-sociological perspectives and judicial behavior theory, the findings suggest that while formal guarantees of judicial independence exist, informal influences can shape outcomes in subtle ways. Judges may adopt a cautious or populist approach, especially when cases involve public morality, political interests, or mass mobilization. The study underscores the tension between the need for courts to be responsive to societal values and the imperative to remain impartial and legally grounded. The novelty of this research lies in its empirical focus on Indonesia, where judicial legitimacy often hinges on navigating competing demands from the state, society, and legal norms. This study contributes to broader debates on judicial accountability and offers recommendations for strengthening institutional safeguards that protect courts from undue external influence.
judicial independence, public pressure, high-profile cases, media influence, Indonesia
Copyright (c) 2024 Nurul Izzah Maulana Putri (Author) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Judicial Precedents on Privacy Rights: Court Rulings in the Digital Era
As digital technologies become increasingly embedded in everyday life, courts in Indonesia are increasingly required to define the scope and limits of privacy rights. This study examines judicial precedents that address privacy in the context of surveillance, data protection, and digital expression, particularly in light of the absence of a comprehensive data protection law until recently. Using qualitative content analysis of Constitutional Court and Supreme Court decisions, this research investigates how Indonesian courts have interpreted privacy within constitutional and statutory frameworks. The findings show a growing recognition of privacy as a fundamental right, though judicial reasoning remains inconsistent and often lacks a clear doctrinal foundation. In several landmark cases, courts have acknowledged the importance of protecting personal data and private communications, but have struggled to balance privacy with competing state interests such as national security or public morality. This study highlights the urgent need for a coherent judicial approach to privacy, especially as digital surveillance and data misuse become more prevalent. The novelty of this research lies in mapping the evolving jurisprudence on privacy and proposing a normative framework for more consistent judicial protection. By critically analyzing court practices, the study contributes to ongoing discussions about constitutional rights in the digital age and the role of judicial precedents in shaping data governance.
privacy rights, judicial precedent, digital age, data protection, Indonesian courts
Copyright (c) 2024 Ratih Damayanti, Duhita Driyah Suprapti, Rohmat Rohmat (Author) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Relevance of Classical Criminal Law Principles in the Handling of Cybercrimes
Cybercrime presents a significant challenge to traditional legal frameworks, particularly classical criminal law principles such as legality (nullum crimen sine lege), culpability, and proportionality. This study explores the extent to which these foundational principles remain relevant and applicable in Indonesia’s approach to cybercrime. Drawing upon legal doctrinal analysis and statutory review, as well as selected court decisions involving cyber defamation, hacking, and data theft, the research critically assesses how classical principles are being interpreted and adapted in digital contexts. The findings reveal a complex legal landscape: while the principles of legality and culpability continue to serve as cornerstones of criminal justice, ambiguities in cybercrime legislation and expansive interpretations by courts may undermine legal predictability and individual protections. For instance, the broad language of the Electronic Information and Transactions (EIT) Law often clashes with the requirement of specificity in criminal law. This study argues that a careful recalibration of classical doctrines is needed—one that maintains legal safeguards while allowing flexibility in addressing evolving digital harms. The novelty of the research lies in its re-examination of enduring criminal law theories in light of contemporary challenges, offering doctrinal and policy insights for reform. As cybercrime grows more sophisticated, ensuring that criminal law remains principled yet adaptable is both a legal and ethical imperative.
cybercrime, classical criminal law, legality principle, digital justice, Indonesia
Copyright (c) 2024 Indung Wijayanto, Ali Masyhar, Winarsih Winarsih (Author) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Legal Certainty and Arbitration in Indonesia: Striking a Balance Between Efficiency and Substantive Justice
Arbitration has become an increasingly preferred dispute resolution mechanism in Indonesia due to its efficiency, confidentiality, and finality. However, concerns remain regarding its ability to ensure substantive justice and legal certainty. This study examines the Indonesian arbitration framework, focusing on the tension between procedural efficiency and the delivery of fair outcomes. Using doctrinal analysis and selected case studies, the research evaluates the enforcement of arbitral awards, judicial intervention in arbitration proceedings, and the legal standards applied by courts when reviewing arbitration-related matters. The findings indicate that while Indonesia’s Arbitration Law provides a clear legal basis for arbitral independence and finality, inconsistent judicial interpretation and limited oversight mechanisms can lead to uncertainty and unpredictability. This raises critical questions about how to ensure justice without undermining the core efficiency values of arbitration. The novelty of this study lies in its effort to bridge the normative objectives of arbitration with the evolving expectations of justice in complex commercial disputes. As arbitration continues to expand within Indonesia’s legal landscape, especially in cross-border matters, striking a balance between speed and fairness becomes increasingly urgent. The study contributes to policy debates by offering recommendations to strengthen legal certainty, improve judicial consistency, and enhance the integrity of the arbitration process without compromising its core advantages.
arbitration, legal certainty, substantive justice, judicial review, Indonesia
Copyright (c) 2024 Intan Permata, Fajar Arif Nugraha (Author) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Corporate Accountability in Law Enforcement: Challenges in Proving and Punishing Corporate Crimes
Corporate crime poses a growing threat to economic integrity, public safety, and environmental sustainability, yet legal systems often struggle to hold corporations accountable. This study explores the challenges faced by Indonesian law enforcement agencies and courts in proving and prosecuting corporate crimes, ranging from environmental violations to corruption and financial fraud. Through analysis of selected case studies, court judgments, and interviews with prosecutors, investigators, and legal scholars, the research identifies key barriers such as evidentiary complexity, corporate shielding structures, weak regulatory frameworks, and institutional reluctance. The study highlights the limitations of current legal tools in attributing liability to corporate entities, especially in the absence of clear standards for corporate intent and culpability. It also discusses recent legal reforms and their potential to improve enforcement. The novelty of this study lies in its comprehensive examination of both procedural and structural barriers to corporate accountability. It offers policy recommendations for strengthening corporate criminal liability mechanisms and ensuring that justice is not evaded through legal and institutional loopholes.
corporate crime, legal enforcement, accountability, criminal liability, Indonesia
Copyright (c) 2024 Indah Sri Utari, Cahya Wulandari, Ridwan Arifin (Author) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
The Political-Legal Implications of the Constitutional Court's Ruling on the Omnibus Law
The Constitutional Court's ruling on Indonesia’s controversial Omnibus Law on Job Creation has sparked significant political and legal debate. This study analyzes the broader implications of the Court's decision, particularly its finding of "conditionally unconstitutional" status, and its impact on the balance of powers, democratic accountability, and legal certainty. By employing a doctrinal and socio-legal approach, the research assesses the ruling's legal reasoning, political context, and institutional consequences. The findings suggest that while the Court sought to uphold procedural constitutionalism, its ambiguous formulation may have inadvertently weakened the force of judicial review and allowed for executive dominance. The study also examines how various stakeholders—including civil society, labor unions, and political elites—responded to the decision. The novelty of this research lies in its focus on the intersection of judicial decisions and legislative-executive dynamics. It contributes to broader discussions on constitutional resilience, governance, and the evolving role of the judiciary in democratic consolidation.
constitutional court, omnibus law, judicial review, political-legal analysis, Indonesia
Copyright (c) 2024 Maya Wulandari (Author) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Access to Legal Aid and Its Impact on Fair Trials in District Courts
Access to legal aid is a cornerstone of the right to a fair trial, yet its availability and quality in Indonesia’s district courts remain inconsistent. This study examines how access to legal aid affects the fairness of criminal proceedings, particularly for indigent defendants. Using field data from several district courts, combined with interviews and case file reviews, the research evaluates whether legal aid provision ensures meaningful representation and protects procedural rights. The findings indicate that while legal aid institutions play a crucial role, systemic limitations—such as underfunding, lack of qualified personnel, and late-stage intervention—undermine their effectiveness. Furthermore, judicial attitudes and procedural constraints often limit the substantive impact of legal aid. The study contributes to ongoing debates on justice sector reform by highlighting the urgent need to strengthen legal aid systems at the grassroots level. It also underscores the broader implications of legal aid for legal empowerment, access to justice, and human rights protection in Indonesia’s legal landscape.
legal aid, fair trial, access to justice, district courts, Indonesia
Copyright (c) 2024 Bao Chau, Benjamin Clarke, Bambang Sugiharto (Author) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
The Constitutional Court and Identity Politics: An Analysis of Socially Sensitive Rulings
The Constitutional Court of Indonesia often finds itself at the intersection of law and society, particularly when adjudicating cases involving identity politics. This study investigates how the Court approaches socially sensitive cases—such as those involving religion, ethnicity, gender, and minority rights—and the extent to which its rulings contribute to social inclusion or exclusion. Through a qualitative content analysis of landmark decisions, the research explores the legal reasoning, socio-political context, and public reception of these rulings. The findings suggest that the Court adopts a cautious approach, often balancing constitutional principles with prevailing societal values. However, such decisions sometimes reflect normative compromises that may inadvertently reinforce majoritarian dominance or fail to protect vulnerable groups. This research brings a novel perspective by framing the Constitutional Court not only as a legal institution but also as a political actor navigating a pluralistic society. It offers insights into the limits and possibilities of constitutional adjudication in managing identity-based tensions within a democratic framework.
identity politics, constitutional court, minority rights, Indonesia, legal pluralism
Copyright (c) 2024 Hafiz Rahman, Siti Abdul Kasim (Author) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
A Comparative Study of Judicial Review Mechanisms in Indonesia and Other ASEAN Countries
Judicial review serves as a crucial instrument for constitutional oversight and the protection of fundamental rights. This study provides a comparative analysis of judicial review mechanisms in Indonesia and selected ASEAN countries, including Malaysia, Thailand, and the Philippines. It examines institutional design, procedural access, jurisdictional scope, and the practical impact of constitutional review in each system. Utilizing a comparative legal methodology, the research highlights significant differences in how constitutional courts or supreme courts exercise judicial review across the region. The findings reveal that while Indonesia’s Constitutional Court has a broad and active role, other ASEAN countries show varied degrees of institutional independence and procedural accessibility. The study identifies gaps in Indonesia's system, such as challenges in enforcement and limited citizen access, while drawing lessons from regional practices that offer more participatory or flexible models. The novelty of this study lies in its regional scope and its effort to bridge comparative constitutional theory with practical institutional performance. By situating Indonesia’s system within the ASEAN legal landscape, the research contributes to discussions on constitutional reform and judicial effectiveness in emerging democracies.
judicial review, constitutional court, ASEAN, comparative law, Indonesia
Copyright (c) 2024 Dewi Arum Saraswati, Praphat Siri (Author) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0