When Customary Law Meets Constitutional Equality: Resolving Conflicts Between Indigenous Norms and Minority Rights in Indonesia

Abstract

Indigenous customary law occupies an important position within Indonesia's legal pluralist system, yet its recognition raises difficult questions when customary norms potentially conflict with constitutional principles of equality and individual rights. This article examines how legal institutions should resolve tensions between collective indigenous autonomy and the rights of individuals who may occupy marginalized positions within customary communities. The research focuses particularly on women, children, and internal minorities whose interests may not always correspond with dominant customary practices. Employing a normative juridical and comparative approach, the study analyzes constitutional provisions, legislation concerning indigenous communities, relevant judicial decisions, and principles of legal pluralism and human rights. The article argues that neither unconditional state intervention nor absolute deference to customary authority provides an adequate framework for resolving such conflicts. Absolute deference may entrench internal discrimination, whereas excessive state intervention may undermine indigenous autonomy and cultural integrity. The study therefore proposes a proportionality-based approach that recognizes customary autonomy while establishing constitutional minimum guarantees for equality, dignity, and fundamental rights. The article concludes that Indonesian legal pluralism should be understood as a negotiated relationship between collective self-determination and individual rights rather than as a hierarchy in which one automatically prevails. This framework provides a basis for developing more nuanced judicial and legislative responses to conflicts between customary norms and minority rights.