p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.408
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal jle
Lely Mahartina Khoiru Ummah
Universitas Islam Negeri Kiai Ageng Muhammad Besari Ponorogo

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

Marriage Dispensation Orders: Judicial Product or State Administrative Decision Lely Mahartina Khoiru Ummah; Lilia Prasastiningtyas
Journal of Law and Economics Vol. 5 No. 1 (2026): MAY
Publisher : Yayasan Kawanad

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.56347/jle.v5i1.417

Abstract

The amendment to the minimum marriage age through Law Number 16 of 2019 has led to a marked rise in applications for marriage dispensation before the Religious Courts, prompting a conceptual question regarding the legal standing of such orders — whether they ought to be read purely as judicial products or as state administrative decisions. Through normative legal research employing statutory and conceptual approaches, this study analyzes the juridical character of marriage dispensation orders and examines whether they satisfy the criteria of a state administrative decision, namely concreteness, individuality, finality, and the production of legal consequences, within the framework of administrative law. The findings reveal that marriage dispensation orders carry a hybrid character: procedurally issued as judicial products by the Religious Courts, yet substantively displaying characteristics of administrative decisions given that they constitute concrete, individual, and final grants of permission. This ambiguity signals the relevance of applying the general principles of good governance (AUPB) — particularly the principles of prudence and the protection of the best interests of the child — in adjudicating dispensation cases, and leads this study to advance the conceptualization of marriage dispensation orders as a judicialized administrative act, drawing attention to the intersection between judicial authority and administrative decision-making in the Indonesian legal system.  
Digital Discretion and AI-Based Automated Decisions in Indonesian Administrative Law Lely Mahartina Khoiru Ummah; Muhammad Wildan Sofi; Abdalmonem Muhammad monem
Journal of Law and Economics Vol. 5 No. 2 (2026): NOVEMBER
Publisher : Yayasan Kawanad

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.56347/jle.v5i2.416

Abstract

The digital transformation of government has led to the adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) to support public services, including complaint chatbots, automated social assistance eligibility assessment systems, and algorithm-based licensing. However, under administrative law, public decisions must be issued by authorized officials in accordance with the principles of legality and accountability. When part of the decision-making process is conducted through an automated system, important legal questions arise: Can automated decisions be categorized as a form of administrative discretion, and who bears legal responsibility when such decisions harm citizens? This study aims to analyze the legal status of AI-based automated decisions in relation to the concept of administrative discretion and to formulate a legal framework that ensures accountability, transparency, and the protection of citizens’ rights. This research employs a normative juridical method using statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches. The analysis focuses on Articles 22–23 of Law No. 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration, relevant regulations on electronic-based government systems, and practices of digital public services. The findings show that automated decisions cannot be regarded as administrative discretion without a clear legal basis authorizing their use, while legal responsibility remains with the authorized officials or public institutions operating the system. The novelty of this study lies in its conceptualization of “digital discretion” within Indonesian administrative law and its proposal of a risk-based supervision model incorporating a human-in-the-loop mechanism to ensure that the use of AI in public administration remains subject to the rule of law.