<![CDATA[This research examines the juridical consequences of the finality of Maritime Court decisions for seafarers' constitutional rights to justice and legal certainty, alongside an evaluation of oversight and protection mechanisms against administrative abuse. Indonesia's archipelagic character makes the maritime sector economically vital, yet seafarers face heightened legal vulnerability when maritime accidents occur, particularly because Maritime Court rulings are statutorily final and unappealable. The urgency stems from the tension between procedural efficiency and constitutional safeguards, compounded by the lack of adequate remedies for rights restoration. Employing a normative-juridical method with statutory and conceptual approaches, this study applies legal content analysis, systematic interpretation, and comparative examination of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal sources. The primary statutes scrutinized are Law No. 17 of 2008 on Shipping and Law No. 48 of 2009 on Judicial Power, alongside relevant implementing regulations. The precise legal finding reveals that the statutory finality properly understood as "final and binding" under Article 10(2) of Law No. 17/2008 effectively forecloses ordinary appeal mechanisms, thereby restricting seafarers' access to substantive justice and external judicial oversight. This closure increases the risk of authority misuse, as no hierarchical appellate remedy exists for factual or legal errors in Maritime Court adjudication. The study concludes that a reinterpretation of finality's normative scope, reinforced by external supervisory mechanisms, and improved legal literacy among seafarers are essential. The novelty lies in positioning seafarers' constitutional rights as the analytical core not a secondary byproduct of the finality discourse, offering a rights-based critique that challenges the prevailing efficiency-oriented justifications for procedural finality.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
