<![CDATA[This article examines the term “rule of law,” which has been part of Indonesia’s constitutional identity since the enactment of the 1945 Constitution, yet whose implementation has often deviated from its original ideals. The rule of law seems to be nothing more than a formal jargon, marked by corruption, human rights violations, and minimal public participation in the formulation of regulations. The research method used is normative-critical-evaluative legal philosophy. The results of this study show that the Pancasila rule of law paradigm is prismatic. This paradigm is dynamic and open to new values, but the normalization of the phrase “Indonesia is a country based on the rule of law” has not had a real impact on the practice of nationhood and statehood. In the contemporary paradigm, the actualization of the rule of law still faces substantive problems in the form of weak accountability, the failure of checks and balances, and low public participation in legislation. The study emphasizes the need to strengthen the rule of law paradigm so that it is not merely formal, but substantive, in accordance with the ideals of Pancasila.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
