<![CDATA[As a rechtstaat (rule-of-law state), Indonesia constitutionally guarantees the freedom of assembly, including public demonstrations, under Article 28E(3) of the 1945 Constitution. In practice, however, these articulations of public dissent are frequently met with repressive state actions, reflecting a prevailing formalistic legal paradigm. This paradigm reduces law to a mere instrument of public order, consequently disregarding complex social realities. This research analyzes the phenomenon of public demonstrations and the corresponding legislative responses through the theoretical lens of sociological jurisprudence. Employing a normative-empirical juridical methodology, the study utilizes secondary data acquired via comprehensive library research. The findings reveal that sociological jurisprudence, pioneered by Roscoe Pound and Eugen Ehrlich, conceptualizes law not as static statutes (law in books), but dynamically as living law and as law as a tool of social engineering. From this perspective, demonstrations—such as the widespread protests against the Omnibus Law are interpreted not as mere legal infractions, but as vital manifestations of this living law and essential social feedback. They signify a profound chasm between formal positive law and the public’s substantive sense of justice. Therefore, it is concluded that legislators aligned with a sociological perspective must eschew repressive reactions, adopting instead dialogical, participatory, and responsive engagement. Such a legislative response is imperative for substantive policy correction, reinforcing legal legitimacy, and ensuring the legal framework functions to achieve genuine social justice rather than existing solely as an instrument of power.]]>
