<![CDATA[The marginalisation of dissenting opinions in Indonesian civil adjudication is a symptom of the unfinished decolonisation of the national private law epistemology. This article critically analyses the socio-legal resistance to dissenting opinions, which remains hegemonised by the colonial legacy doctrine of the secrecy of deliberations (geheim van de raadkamer). Through a socio-legal approach that integrates legal irritant theory and legal systems theory, this research demonstrates that the failure to implement dissenting opinions stems from an epistemological clash between rigid codification positivism and the demands of modern constitutionalism, a situation exacerbated by bureaucratic pathology and a culture of legal conformity. The novelty of this article lies in the operationalisation of the radiating effect theory to reconstruct the dissenting opinion. This institution is no longer positioned merely as a procedural right; rather, it transforms into an institutional constitutional obligation. In conclusion, the deconstruction of the secrecy of deliberations doctrine through discursive transparency successfully reconciles judicial independence with constitutional accountability, whilst simultaneously transforming the dissenting opinion into a primary catalyst for the decolonisation of substantive civil law. This research recommends the reform of the administrative protection of judges, alongside a progressive paradigm shift in the culture of judicial deliberation.]]>
