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 282 Documents
 25   26   27   28   29 
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? Syahputri, Della Hervi; Simatupang, Ampuan; Sudirman, Lu
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.

Page 29 of 29 | Total Record : 282

 25   26   27   28   29 

Filter by Year

2007 2025


Reset
Filter By Issues
All Issue 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