<![CDATA[Blasphemy cases in Indonesia present a complex intersection between criminal law, religious norms, and constitutional guarantees. Judicial handling of such cases has generated debate regarding impartiality and court justice. This paper examines how judges interpret blasphemy provisions and the implications of such interpretation for judicial neutrality. Through doctrinal analysis of statutory provisions and selected blasphemy judgments, the study explores how moral and religious considerations are incorporated into legal reasoning. The analysis suggests that judicial interpretation often extends beyond textual legality, blurring the boundary between legal judgment and moral evaluation. By examining blasphemy adjudication as a test case for court justice, the paper highlights the challenges faced by courts in pluralistic societies. It raises broader questions about the role of judges in balancing societal values with constitutional principles of legality and equality before the law.]]>
Copyrights © 2025
