Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.444
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Journal of Social Science Journal Research of Social Science, Economics, and Management
Ery Pamungkas
Universitas Pancasila
Environmental Science Social Sciences

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

Found 2 Documents
Search

 1 
The Validity Justice: Immanuel Kant's Perspective in Court Decisions on Judicial Corruption (The Case of Sudrajad Dimyati) Ery Pamungkas; Agus Surono; Maslihati Nur Hidayati
Journal Research of Social Science, Economics, and Management Vol. 5 No. 4 (2025): Journal Research of Social Science, Economics, and Management
Publisher : Publikasi Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.59141/jrssem.v5i4.1200

Abstract

Judicial corruption within the Indonesian judiciary represents a profound moral crisis that undermines public trust in legal institutions. This study examines the Bandung District Court Decision Number 23/Pid.Sus-TPK/2023/PN.Bdg against Sudrajad Dimyati, a Supreme Court justice convicted of bribery, through the lens of Immanuel Kant's moral philosophy. Rather than employing conventional legal-formal analysis, this research adopts a deontological ethical approach to evaluate whether the court's verdict fulfilled substantive justice principles. The research investigates two primary questions: (1) Whether the judicial decision satisfies Kantian principles of justice regarding universality, respect for dignity, moral autonomy, and procedural fairness; and (2) How Kant's moral philosophy can inform the development of judicial professional ethics codes in Indonesian courts. This qualitative investigation employs document analysis and philosophical content analysis of the case decision and relevant moral philosophy literature. Findings demonstrate that while the verdict adhered to formal positive law requirements, significant tensions emerged regarding consistency of legal precedent when the appellate court reduced sentences based on humanitarian grounds. Most critically, the institutional system has not yet internalized moral autonomy and universal ethical principles as foundational to judicial governance. This research concludes that implementing four Kantian principles—universality, respect for dignity, moral autonomy, and procedural justice—establishes essential foundations for deontological ethics-based institutional reform of the Indonesian judicial system.
Algorithmic Accountability in Marketplaces: A Reconstruction of ThePrinciple of Intermediary Liability Based on John Rawls’s Theory ofDistributive Justice Ery Pamungkas
Journal Of Social Science (JoSS) Vol 5 No 8 (2026): Journal of Social Science
Publisher : Al-Makki Publisher

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.57185/te7dky46

Abstract

Indonesia’s growing digital economy has positioned marketplaces as market infrastructure that shapes transaction processes for millions of consumers and micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs). An unresolved legal issue concerns the responsibility of marketplaces for ranking and recommendation algorithms that implicitly determine which sellers gain visibility and which are disadvantaged. This article aims to reconstruct the principle of intermediary liability through the concept of algorithmic accountability based on John Rawls’s theory of distributive justice and to propose legal instruments that address regulatory gaps in Indonesia. This research employed a normative juridical approach combining legislative, conceptual, philosophical, and limited comparative approaches. Primary and secondary legal materials were analyzed qualitatively to develop a coherent legal framework. The safe harbor doctrine underlying intermediary liability regulation in Indonesia is inadequate for addressing marketplace algorithmic power because it focuses primarily on third-party content rather than platform-generated automated decisions. The reconstruction through algorithmic accountability proposes independent algorithmic audits and the right to explanation as legal instruments, drawing on lessons from the Digital Services Act and Article 22 of the General Data Protection Regulation. The theoretical contribution of this article is to position algorithmic accountability as an independent legal object rather than merely a complementary principle and to extend the application of Rawls’s distributive justice from outcome-based justice to procedural justice. Therefore, intermediary liability should be assessed based on the procedural fairness of the distribution of market opportunities rather than solely on responsibility for third-party content.
Co-Authors Agus Surono Maslihati Nur Hidayati