Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.408
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Sophist Jurnal Sosial Politik Kajian Islam dan Tafsir
Emelia Kontesa
University of Bengkulu
Religion Humanities Social Sciences

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

Found 2 Documents
Search

 1 
SAME RULE, DIFFERENT FATES: SCHOOL ZONING, UNEQUAL SUPPLY, AND THE CASE FOR SUBSTANTIVE EDUCATIONAL JUSTICE IN INDONESIA Muhammad Jibran Arief; Gian Rakha Anggara; Eldi Korniawan; M. Wendie Fratama; Emelia Kontesa
Sophist: Jurnal Sosial Politik Kajian Islam dan Tafsir Vol. 8 No. 3 (2026): Digital Epistemology, Maqasid Ethics, Socio-Legal Reform, and Civilizational Re
Publisher : Journal Sophist

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.20414/sophist.v8i3.165

Abstract

Indonesia's school zoning policy assigns public school seats by residence, and the 2025 reform renamed it the domicile track without changing that logic. This article asks why a formally equal rule has not produced educational justice where school supply is uneven, and builds a test that can tell. Using doctrinal legal research and a stylised simulation, it reads the admission rule through Aristotle's proportionality, Rawls's difference principle with Sen's capability approach, and Radbruch's balance of justice, purposiveness and legal certainty. The documented record shows public seats covering only about 47 per cent of expected junior secondary applicants in Jakarta, 128 sub-districts in West Java with no public senior secondary school, manipulated residence documents in Makassar, and unfilled public seats in Bengkulu. The simulation shows one identical rule producing placement rates of 99, 80 and 35 per cent across three districts, converging at 79 per cent once seats are redistributed. The article concludes that a residence-based admission rule is substantively just only where nearby seats are adequate, published and monitored, with a duty to correct shortfalls resting on the authority that drew the zone.
JUSTICE ON PAPER, INJUSTICE IN PRACTICE: RETHINKING CONSUMER PROTECTION IN INDONESIA'S ONLINE MARKETPLACES Tiara Dhiya Nafisah; Dian Dwi Pratiwi; Septiyan Dwi Putra; Emelia Kontesa
Sophist: Jurnal Sosial Politik Kajian Islam dan Tafsir Vol. 8 No. 3 (2026): Digital Epistemology, Maqasid Ethics, Socio-Legal Reform, and Civilizational Re
Publisher : Journal Sophist

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.20414/sophist.v8i3.168

Abstract

Indonesian consumers keep losing money to non-conforming goods bought through online marketplaces, even though a consumer-protection framework already exists on paper. This article asks why that gap persists and how legal philosophy should guide the way responsibility for it is assigned. Using normative legal research, it reads Law No. 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection and its implementing regulations against Aristotle's distinction between distributive and corrective justice and Rawlsian fairness. The analysis finds that losses persist because of information asymmetry, weak consumer bargaining power, limited access to evidence, and enforcement that rarely reaches small-value disputes, leaving the justice consumers experience well short of the justice the statute promises. Responsibility for non-conforming goods should track who actually controls a transaction's risk, which means marketplaces cannot treat themselves as neutral intermediaries. The article concludes that stronger enforcement, cheaper dispute channels, and provisional refunds based on reasonable initial evidence would close much of that gap, provided they are balanced against legal certainty and the consumer's own duty of good faith.
Co-Authors Dian Dwi Pratiwi Eldi Korniawan Gian Rakha Anggara M. Wendie Fratama Muhammad Jibran Arief septiyan dwi putra Tiara Dhiya Nafisah