cover
Article Per Year (5 Year)
All
Home Page
OAI Link
Editorial Team
Contact
Reviewer
Google Scholar
Contact Name
Winsherly Tan
Contact Email
winsherly@uib.ac.id
Phone
+6281277621673
Journal Mail Official
winsherly@uib.ac.id
Editorial Address
Faculty of Law, Universitas Internasional Batam, Jl. Gajah Mada, Baloi - Sei Ladi, Batam, Indonesia, 29442
Location
Kota batam,
Kepulauan riau
INDONESIA
Journal of Judicial Review
Published by Universitas Internasional Batam
ISSN : 19076479     EISSN : 27745414     DOI : http://dx.doi.org/10.37253/jjr.v22i2
Core Subject : Social,
Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice
JJR is a journal which aim to publish the manuscripts of high-quality research as well as conceptual analysis that studies in any fields of Law. Articles submitted to this journal discuss contemporary legal discourses in the light of theoretical, doctrinal, multidisciplinary, empirical, and comparative studies. The scope of the paper submissions includes constitutional and administrative law, corporate law, business law, criminal justice, adat law, Islamic law, law and society, international law, international economic law, human rights law, and intellectual property law.
Arjuna Subject : Ilmu Sosial - Hukum
Articles 298 Documents
 26   27   28   29   30 
Colonial Legacy and Gender Inequality in Marital Property Law: A Critical Analysis of Article 119 of the Indonesian Civil Code Dianto, Roni; Hariyana, Trinas Dwi; Styawan, David Novan
Journal of Judicial Review Vol. 27 No. 2 (2025): December 2025
Publisher : Universitas Internasional Batam

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.37253/jjr.v27i2.11921

Abstract

This article critically examines the legal protection of a wife’s separate property within Indonesia’s national legal system, focusing on the normative conflict between Article 119 of the Indonesian Civil Code (Burgerlijk Wetboek) and Article 35 of Law Number 1 of 1974 on Marriage. The core legal issue addressed is whether the automatic community of property regime established by Article 119, which absorbs all assets into joint marital property in the absence of a prenuptial agreement, remains compatible with constitutional principles of gender equality, legal certainty, and substantive justice. The objective of this study is to evaluate the continuing relevance of Article 119, assess its practical impact on the economic rights of wives, and formulate a juridically sound reformulation that aligns civil law with constitutional and human rights standards. This research employs a normative juridical method, utilizing statutory, conceptual, jurisprudential, and comparative approaches. Primary legal materials include the Civil Code, the Marriage Law, the 1945 Constitution, and selected Supreme Court decisions, while secondary materials consist of legal doctrine and international scholarly studies on matrimonial property regimes. The findings demonstrate that Article 119 of the Civil Code is no longer consistent with Indonesia’s constitutional commitment to gender equality and legal protection, as it allows a wife’s separate property to be absorbed into joint marital assets and exposed to division, inheritance claims, or creditors’ rights. In contrast, Article 35 of the Marriage Law affirms the autonomy of each spouse over separate property and reflects a more equitable legal paradigm. Judicial practice, however, still shows normative dualism, generating legal uncertainty and structural vulnerability for wives. The study further finds that progressive jurisprudence has begun to recognize separate property rights, but these developments remain fragmented without legislative reform. This study is significant because it provides a comprehensive normative and constitutional justification for reformulating Article 119 of the Civil Code, proposing a shift from an automatic community of property regime to a model based on individual property autonomy and mutual consent. By integrating constitutional principles, gender justice, and comparative family law, this research contributes to the development of a more coherent, equitable, and modern Indonesian civil law system that effectively protects the economic rights of wives within marriage.
Does Constitutional Court Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023 Violate the Nemo Judex in Causa Sua Principle? Della Hervi Syahputri; Ampuan Simatupang; Lu Sudirman
Journal of Judicial Review Vol. 27 No. 2 (2025): December 2025
Publisher : Universitas Internasional Batam

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.37253/jjr.v27i2.11050

Abstract

This study addresses the problem of potential violations of the nemo judex in causa sua principle in Constitutional Court Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023 and their implications for judicial integrity and public trust in Indonesia’s constitutional system. The objective of this research is to analyze the application of the nemo judex in causa sua principle in the decision and to examine its impact on public confidence in the Constitutional Court, particularly in electoral judicial review cases. This study employs a normative juridical method using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches, supported by qualitative analysis of legal materials, judicial decisions, and academic literature. The findings reveal that although the principle of nemo judex in causa sua is normatively recognized in Indonesian law, its implementation remains insufficiently regulated, thereby creating opportunities for conflicts of interest within judicial processes. The analysis of Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023 indicates indications of compromised judicial impartiality, which triggered widespread public criticism and contributed to a decline in institutional credibility. Empirical data further demonstrate fluctuations in public trust, suggesting that controversial decisions perceived as biased can significantly weaken democratic legitimacy, while decisions aligned with fairness and constitutional values tend to restore public confidence. This study highlights the urgent need for institutional reform, including the formalization of recusal mechanisms, stricter enforcement of judicial ethics, and enhanced transparency and accountability in judicial proceedings.
Immutable Digital Timestamp as a Preventive Measure Against Podcast Manipulation: A Normative and Comparative Legal Analysis Ninik Zakiyah; Budi Santoso; Muh. Afif Mahfud; Try Hardyanthi; Noor Kholifah Hidayati
Journal of Judicial Review Vol. 28 No. 1 (2026): June 2026 (Articles in Press)
Publisher : Universitas Internasional Batam

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.37253/jjr.v28i1.12087

Abstract

The growth of digital audio content distribution through podcast platforms raises concerns about the authentication and integrity of electronic evidence within Indonesia's legal system. Although the ITE Law recognizes electronic information and documents as valid evidence, it has yet to establish clear technical standards for verifying the integrity and publication date of digital content. This article adopts a normative legal approach, using a comparative method to examine the United States and the European Union. In the United States, the authentication of electronic evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence Rule 901 generally accepts hash verification and chain of custody as reliable methods. Meanwhile, the European Union, through Regulation (EU) No. 910/2014 (eIDAS), has institutionalized qualified electronic timestamps as part of its trust services, providing a presumption of data integrity. This comparison shows that Indonesia still follows a reactive evidentiary model and has not yet implemented preventive technical standards. This article proposes a normative reconstruction that requires immutable timestamps and minimum hash standards for implementing regulations as a form of “regulation by architecture” and “compliance by design.” This approach aims to improve legal certainty and accountability without impeding free expression, making the integrity of digital content an integral part of the national legal framework.
Regulating Unfair Competition in E-Commerce: The Role of Indonesian Business Competition Supervisory Commission Muhammad Fauzi Rais Lutfi; Dede Agus
Journal of Judicial Review Vol. 28 No. 1 (2026): June 2026 (Articles in Press)
Publisher : Universitas Internasional Batam

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.37253/jjr.v28i1.11317

Abstract

The rapid growth of e-commerce in Indonesia has transformed market structures and intensified competition among business actors, giving rise to new forms of unfair business competition that are not fully accommodated by existing competition law regulations. This condition creates legal uncertainty and challenges the effective enforcement of Law No. 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition. This study aims to analyze the role of the Business Competition Supervisory Commission in regulating and preventing unfair competition in the e-commerce sector. Employing a comparative legal research methodology, this study examines KPPU’s regulatory approach and legal policy advocacy in the digital economy, analyzed through the perspectives of utilitarianism theory and legal certainty theory. The findings show that KPPU plays an important role through legal policy advocacy directed at e-commerce platforms and the government to promote fair competition and legal certainty. Nevertheless, continuous regulatory adaptation remains necessary to address the dynamic nature of digital markets effectively. This study concludes that strengthening KPPU’s role in legal policy advocacy is essential to ensure effective regulation and the prevention of unfair competition in Indonesia’s e-commerce sector.
Rethinking MSMEs Tax Exemptions in Indonesia: Force Majeure and Tax Justice During COVID-19 Tri Eka Saputra; Askari Razak
Journal of Judicial Review Vol. 28 No. 1 (2026): June 2026 (Articles in Press)
Publisher : Universitas Internasional Batam

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.37253/jjr.v28i1.12077

Abstract

This study aims to reassess tax exemption policies for Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) during the COVID-19 crisis in Indonesia within the framework of fiscal justice principles and the doctrine of force majeure. Employing a purely normative legal research method, with statutory and philosophical approaches, this research analyzes the prevailing tax law norms, the potential integration of force majeure into the taxation legal system, and the urgency to reconstruct a more responsive principle of tax justice during national emergencies. The key findings indicate that tax incentive policies for MSMES remain sectoral in nature, rely solely on administrative approaches, and have yet to fully adopt force majeure as a legal foundation for granting fiscal relief. The concept of tax justice grounded in public law principles and legal responsiveness must be advanced to shape a more adaptive and equitable tax system. This study has implications for strengthening the national tax regulatory framework, particularly in developing crisis-responsive policies based on substantive justice, and opens the path for new legislation that clarifies the scope and operationalization of force majeure within the fiscal context.
Reconstruction of Criminal Liability of Artificial Intelligence in Future Positive Criminal Law Kartika Sasi Wahyuningrum; Ahmad Novindri Aji Sukma; Angga Aldillah Gusman
Journal of Judicial Review Vol. 28 No. 1 (2026): June 2026 (Articles in Press)
Publisher : Universitas Internasional Batam

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.37253/jjr.v28i1.12080

Abstract

The rapid advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has significantly transformed various sectors while presenting complex legal challenges, particularly in the realm of criminal liability. This study examines the regulation of criminal liability related to AI in Indonesian positive law and explores its future legal construction. Using normative juridical methods with statutory and conceptual approaches, this study analyzes the existing legal framework, doctrine, and comparative perspectives. Indonesian legal regulations do not recognize AI as a legal subject capable of bearing criminal responsibility. Instead, AI is positioned as a tool or object, with responsibility attributed to human actors, such as developers, operators, or users. This is primarily due to the absence of elements of criminal liability in AI, such as mens rea (malicious intent), consciousness, and moral agency. However, the increasing use and misuse of AI, such as in deepfake fraud and data breaches, has exposed significant regulatory gaps and created legal uncertainty in law enforcement. Based on the comparative analysis between the European Union and Indonesia, the future reconstruction of criminal law regarding AI, namely Indonesia, requires a comprehensive and adaptive regulatory framework to address AI-related criminal issues. Rather than recognizing AI as a legal subject, legal systems should strengthen human-centered accountability models while integrating risk-based governance principles. Such reconstruction is crucial to ensure legal certainty, protect the public interest, and responsibly accommodate technological innovation.
Restorative Justice at the Investigation Stage: A Normative Review of Its Conceptualization in the New Criminal Procedure Code Narni Nasir; Hambali Thalib; La Ode Husen
Journal of Judicial Review Vol. 28 No. 1 (2026): June 2026 (Articles in Press)
Publisher : Universitas Internasional Batam

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.37253/jjr.v28i1.12085

Abstract

This article examines how restorative justice is conceptualized at the investigation stage under Indonesia’s New Criminal Procedure Code and tests whether the new framework meaningfully constrains investigative discretion while safeguarding suspects’ rights and maintaining legality, equality, and victim protection. It proceeds from the practical tension between high-volume case handling and the need to prevent coercive settlements, as well as the theoretical tension between punitive proceduralism and restorative repair. The study employs normative legal research using conceptual and analytical approaches. Data are collected through systematic documentary analysis of statutory provisions in the new Criminal Procedure Code and relevant implementing regulations, complemented by international restorative justice standards and doctrinal scholarship. The analysis applies norm identification, element extraction, intra-system comparison, and coherence testing to assess procedural safeguards, oversight design, and rights impacts. The study finds that the new code reframes restorative justice as a legally recognized procedural pathway at the investigation stage, shifting practice from discretion-led settlement to a rule-bound diversion mechanism anchored in documentation and external control points. It further finds that the most consequential constraint on investigators’ authority is the movement toward judicially supervised validation of case termination, while residual risks persist in consent verification, classification consistency, and implementation detail. The findings support policy alignment across policing, prosecution, and adjudication through uniform standards on voluntariness, counsel access, documentation quality, and review criteria. Future research should evaluate operational compliance and the substantive rigor of oversight in high-throughput environments.
Problematics of the Regulation and Implementation of Electronic Deeds in Indonesia's Notarial Legal System Abue Abue; Ariawan Gunadi
Journal of Judicial Review Vol. 28 No. 1 (2026): June 2026 (Articles in Press)
Publisher : Universitas Internasional Batam

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.37253/jjr.v28i1.12122

Abstract

The rapid development of digital technology has driven the increasing use of electronic documents in various legal activities in Indonesia. However, the notarial sector has not been able to fully keep pace with this development, as the formation of notarial deeds remains bound to formal procedures that require the physical presence of the parties. This study aims to analyze the regulation of electronic deeds within the Indonesian notarial legal system and to identify the problems in their implementation in practice. This research employs a normative juridical method with statutory and conceptual approaches. The results indicate that electronic deeds do not yet have an adequate normative basis, as there are no provisions explicitly accommodating their formation within the Notary Position Law. This condition reflects the lack of harmonization between the regulation of electronic documents and the formalistic nature of notarial law, which is rooted in Article 1868 of the Indonesian Civil Code. As a consequence, deeds that do not fulfill formal requirements risk being downgraded from authentic deeds to private documents, thereby weakening their evidentiary value. In addition, their implementation faces a primary obstacle in the form of uneven digital infrastructure, which leads to various technical issues, including identity verification, the assurance of the parties’ free will, the management of electronic minuta deeds, and the readiness of human resources.
Validity of a Notarial Deed Containing the Distribution of Inheritance when it Involves Elements of Fraud (Bedrog) Ida Ayu Sri Widari; Amad Sudiro
Journal of Judicial Review Vol. 28 No. 1 (2026): June 2026 (Articles in Press)
Publisher : Universitas Internasional Batam

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.37253/jjr.v28i1.12124

Abstract

The distribution of inheritance frequently gives rise to civil disputes, particularly regarding the status of heirs, the proportion of shares, and the objects constituting the estate. To obtain legal certainty, the parties often formalize such agreements in a notarial deed as an authentic deed possessing perfect evidentiary value. However, legal issues arise when the deed is established based on elements of bedrog (fraud), such as the concealment of heirs, falsification of family data, or the provision of misleading information that affects the parties’ consent. This study aims to analyze the legal regulation of bedrog under Indonesian civil law and to examine its legal consequences for the validity of a notarial deed containing the distribution of inheritance. This research is normative legal research with a prescriptive nature, employing statutory and conceptual approaches. Legal materials were obtained through library research and analyzed qualitatively using juridical reasoning. The results of the study indicate that bedrog is regulated under Article 1321 and Article 1328 of the Indonesian Civil Code as one form of defect of consent. Fraud does not render an agreement null and void by operation of law, but places it within the category of voidable agreements (vernietigbaar). In a notarial deed, bedrog does not automatically eliminate the formal authenticity of the deed as long as it is drawn up by an authorized public official and fulfills formal requirements. However, fraud impairs the parties’ consent as the material basis of the deed, so that the aggrieved party may seek annulment through the court. Once annulled, the binding force of the inheritance distribution ceases, and the parties’ rights must be restored proportionally. Bedrog affects the material validity of consent rather than directly negating the formal existence of the notarial deed. Therefore, dispute resolution must balance legal certainty and substantive justice. It is recommended that notaries strengthen the principle of prudence and verification of supporting documents in inheritance matters.
Reconstruction of the Concept of Premarital Agreements from the Perspective of Substantive Justice & Gender Equality Janita Wulandari; Ariawan Gunadi
Journal of Judicial Review Vol. 28 No. 1 (2026): June 2026 (Articles in Press)
Publisher : Universitas Internasional Batam

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.37253/jjr.v28i1.12160

Abstract

Prenuptial agreements in Indonesia still face issues of gender inequality and are often dominated by formalistic legal approaches that do not fully reflect substantive justice. This study aims to reconstruct the concept of prenuptial agreements from the perspective of substantive justice and gender equality in order to formulate a more balanced model of legal protection for both spouses. This research employs a normative legal method using statutory, conceptual, and philosophical approaches, supported by literature studies and semi-structured interviews with notaries, which are analyzed qualitatively. The findings indicate that existing legal frameworks, particularly the Civil Code and Marriage Law, continue to emphasize formal legality rather than substantive justice. Although Constitutional Court Decision No. 69/PUU-XIII/2015 has expanded the flexibility of prenuptial agreements, unequal bargaining positions remain due to economic disparities and patriarchal cultural influences. Furthermore, the role of notaries remains largely administrative and has not yet optimally ensured equality between parties. This study introduces a reconstruction model of prenuptial agreements that integrates transparency, protection of vulnerable parties, standardization of contractual clauses, and substantive review mechanisms beyond mere formal legality. In conclusion, prenuptial agreements in Indonesia need to be reoriented from purely formal legal instruments into gender-responsive instruments that promote substantive justice and provide fair and proportional legal protection for both parties.

Page 29 of 30 | Total Record : 298

 26   27   28   29   30 

Filter by Year

2007 2026


Reset
Filter By Issues
All Issue Vol. 28 No. 1 (2026): June 2026 (Articles in Press) Vol. 27 No. 2 (2025): December 2025 Vol. 27 No. 1 (2025): June 2025 Vol. 26 No. 2 (2024): December 2024 Vol. 26 No. 1 (2024): June 2024 Vol. 25 No. 2 (2023): December 2023 Vol. 25 No. 1 (2023): June 2023 Vol 25 No 1 (2023): June 2023 Vol. 24 No. 2 (2022): December 2022 Vol 24 No 2 (2022): December 2022 Vol 24 No 1 (2022): June 2022 Vol. 24 No. 1 (2022): June 2022 Vol. 23 No. 2 (2021): December 2021 Vol 23 No 2 (2021): December 2021 Vol 23 No 1 (2021) Vol 22 No 2 (2020) Vol 22 No 1 (2020) Vol 21 No 2 (2019) Vol 21 No 1 (2019) Vol 20 No 2 (2018) Vol 20 No 1 (2018) Vol 19 No 2 (2017) Vol 19 No 1 (2017) Vol 18 No 2 (2016) Vol 18 No 1 (2016) Vol 17 No 2 (2015) Vol 17 No 1 (2015) Vol 16 No 2 (2014) Vol 16 No 1 (2014) Vol. 15 No. 1 (2013): Journal of Judicial Review Vol. 14 No. 1 (2012): Journal of Judicial Review Vol. 13 No. 1 (2011): Journal of Judicial Review Vol. 12 No. 1 (2010): Journal of Judicial Review Vol. 11 No. 1 (2010): Journal of Judicial Review Vol. 10 No. 1 (2010): Journal of Judicial Review Vol. 9 No. 1 (2009): Journal of Judicial Review Vol. 8 No. 1 (2009): Journal of Judicial Review Vol. 7 No. 1 (2009): Journal of Judicial Review Vol. 6 No. 1 (2008): Journal of Judicial Review Vol. 5 No. 1 (2008): Journal of Judicial Review Vol. 4 No. 1 (2008): Journal of Judicial Review Vol. 3 No. 1 (2007): Journal of Judicial Review Vol. 2 No. 1 (2007): Journal of Judicial Review Vol. 1 No. 1 (2007): Journal of Judicial Review More Issue