Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.61
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Indonesian Constitutional Studies Indonesian Court and Justice Review
Andry Wikra Wardhana Mamonto
Universitas Muslim Indonesia

Published : 3 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 3 Documents
Search

 1 
Beyond Symbolic Recognition: Constitutional Reform for Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Indonesia’s Plural Democracy Andry Wikra Wardhana Mamonto; Yosia Hetharie
Indonesian Constitutional Studies Vol. 1 No. 1 (2025): Indonesian Constitutional Studies, April 2025
Publisher : ARTES LIBRES INSTITUTUM

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.67912/ics.v1i1.6

Abstract

This research examines the limits of Indonesia’s constitutional recognition of indigenous peoples and proposes a reform agenda to move beyond symbolic acknowledgment toward substantive constitutional guarantees. The study is motivated by the enduring gap between Article 18B(2) of the 1945 Constitution, which conditionally recognizes “masyarakat hukum adat,” and the lived reality of indigenous communities who continue to experience dispossession, marginalization, and exclusion from decision-making processes. The objective is to assess why recognition remains symbolic and how constitutional reform can ensure enforceable rights consistent with democratic pluralism and global normative standards. Employing a normative legal research method, the study combines statutory, doctrinal, and jurisprudential analysis with comparative constitutional approaches and conceptual frameworks of constitutionalism, multicultural citizenship, and recognition theory. It draws upon global experiences, particularly from Latin America, Canada, and New Zealand, where constitutional reforms have embedded indigenous rights as substantive guarantees through plurinational frameworks, fiduciary obligations, and institutionalized legal pluralism. The results demonstrate that Indonesia’s recognition remains conditional, fragmented, and weakly institutionalized, rendering it ineffective in protecting indigenous peoples’ rights. In contrast, comparative models illustrate that recognition must be unconditional, operationalized through independent institutions, and grounded in legal pluralism. The findings suggest that sustainable reform in Indonesia requires rearticulating constitutional language, establishing an independent commission on indigenous rights, strengthening judicial enforcement, integrating indigenous legal systems, and linking recognition to environmental stewardship and democratic participation. Ultimately, this research contributes to global debates on indigenous constitutionalism by offering a prescriptive model for reform that positions Indonesia to embody its constitutional motto of “unity in diversity” in both principle and practice.
Judicial Reform in Indonesia: Balancing Independence and Political Interference Firdaus Arifin; Andry Wikra Wardhana Mamonto
Indonesian Court and Justice Review Vol. 1 No. 1 (2024): February, 2024
Publisher : COLLEGIUM JUSTICIA INDONESIA

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.65815/sdyky041

Abstract

This research explores the complex dynamics of judicial reform in Indonesia, focusing on the ongoing tension between judicial independence and political interference. Since the fall of Suharto's authoritarian regime, Indonesia has undertaken significant reforms to strengthen its democratic institutions, particularly the judiciary. This study examines the extent to which judicial reforms, implemented through constitutional changes and the establishment of independent bodies like the Judicial Commission, have succeeded in insulating the judiciary from political pressures. By analyzing case law, policy documents, and conducting interviews with legal experts, judges, and political analysts, the research identifies key challenges in achieving true judicial independence. The findings indicate that while Indonesia’s judiciary has made strides in reducing political influence, persistent issues—such as corruption, political patronage, and limited accountability—continue to undermine its autonomy. Furthermore, the study highlights the role of political elites in shaping judicial decisions and the ways in which these influences manifest in high-profile legal cases. The research argues that while reforms have created legal frameworks to support judicial independence, the judiciary remains vulnerable to external pressures unless broader political and institutional changes are made. The study contributes to the debate on the balance between judicial independence and political interference, offering recommendations for strengthening the rule of law in Indonesia and ensuring a more impartial judicial system.
Judicial Independence in Indonesia Amidst the Rise of Political Populism: A Post-Pandemic Dilemma Andry Wikra Wardhana Mamonto; Firdaus Arifin; Eko Nuriyatman
Indonesian Court and Justice Review Vol. 2 No. 1 (2025): February, 2025
Publisher : COLLEGIUM JUSTICIA INDONESIA

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.65815/1jabp888

Abstract

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.
Co-Authors Eko Nuriyatman Firdaus, Arifin Yosia Hetharie