Indonesian Court and Justice Review
Indonesian Court and Justice Review (e-ISSN: 3164-502X) is published by COLLEGIUM JUSTICIA INDONESIA, first published in 2024, and issued quarterly in February, May, August, and November in online format (electronic format). It is a peer-reviewed academic journal dedicated to advancing rigorous scholarship on courts, judicial institutions, justice systems, and legal practices in Indonesia and comparative jurisdictions. The journal provides an interdisciplinary academic platform for researchers, academics, legal practitioners, policymakers, and other scholars to critically examine the role of courts and judicial institutions in promoting the rule of law, human rights, democratic governance, judicial accountability, and access to justice. It welcomes doctrinal, normative, empirical, comparative, socio-legal, and interdisciplinary research addressing judicial decision-making, judicial independence and accountability, constitutional adjudication, court administration, legal pluralism, customary law, religious courts, judicial reform, and emerging challenges in the administration of justice. The journal publishes Research Articles, Review Articles, Case and Judicial Decision Analyses, Legal and Judicial Commentaries, Book Reviews, Editorials, and Special Issue Articles. All research contributions undergo a rigorous double-anonymous peer-review process to ensure academic quality, originality, and integrity. The journal operates under a Gold Open Access Policy, providing free and immediate access to all published articles without subscription or access fees. Copyright is retained by the authors, and all articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License.
Articles
50 Documents
<![CDATA[A Comparative Study of Judicial Review Mechanisms in Indonesia and Other ASEAN Countries ]]>
<![CDATA[Dewi Arum Saraswati]]>;
<![CDATA[Praphat Siri]]>
<![CDATA[ Indonesian Court and Justice Review Vol. 1 No. 3 (2024): August, 2024 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[COLLEGIUM JUSTICIA INDONESIA ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65815/dm8zs198
<![CDATA[Judicial review serves as a crucial instrument for constitutional oversight and the protection of fundamental rights. This study provides a comparative analysis of judicial review mechanisms in Indonesia and selected ASEAN countries, including Malaysia, Thailand, and the Philippines. It examines institutional design, procedural access, jurisdictional scope, and the practical impact of constitutional review in each system. Utilizing a comparative legal methodology, the research highlights significant differences in how constitutional courts or supreme courts exercise judicial review across the region. The findings reveal that while Indonesia’s Constitutional Court has a broad and active role, other ASEAN countries show varied degrees of institutional independence and procedural accessibility. The study identifies gaps in Indonesia's system, such as challenges in enforcement and limited citizen access, while drawing lessons from regional practices that offer more participatory or flexible models. The novelty of this study lies in its regional scope and its effort to bridge comparative constitutional theory with practical institutional performance. By situating Indonesia’s system within the ASEAN legal landscape, the research contributes to discussions on constitutional reform and judicial effectiveness in emerging democracies.]]>
<![CDATA[The Constitutional Court and Identity Politics: An Analysis of Socially Sensitive Rulings ]]>
<![CDATA[Hafiz Rahman]]>;
<![CDATA[Siti Abdul Kasim]]>
<![CDATA[ Indonesian Court and Justice Review Vol. 1 No. 3 (2024): August, 2024 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[COLLEGIUM JUSTICIA INDONESIA ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65815/ffdpps10
<![CDATA[The Constitutional Court of Indonesia often finds itself at the intersection of law and society, particularly when adjudicating cases involving identity politics. This study investigates how the Court approaches socially sensitive cases—such as those involving religion, ethnicity, gender, and minority rights—and the extent to which its rulings contribute to social inclusion or exclusion. Through a qualitative content analysis of landmark decisions, the research explores the legal reasoning, socio-political context, and public reception of these rulings. The findings suggest that the Court adopts a cautious approach, often balancing constitutional principles with prevailing societal values. However, such decisions sometimes reflect normative compromises that may inadvertently reinforce majoritarian dominance or fail to protect vulnerable groups. This research brings a novel perspective by framing the Constitutional Court not only as a legal institution but also as a political actor navigating a pluralistic society. It offers insights into the limits and possibilities of constitutional adjudication in managing identity-based tensions within a democratic framework.]]>
<![CDATA[Access to Legal Aid and Its Impact on Fair Trials in District Courts ]]>
<![CDATA[Bao Chau]]>;
<![CDATA[Benjamin Clarke]]>;
<![CDATA[Bambang Sugiharto]]>
<![CDATA[ Indonesian Court and Justice Review Vol. 1 No. 3 (2024): August, 2024 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[COLLEGIUM JUSTICIA INDONESIA ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65815/q1ydm528
<![CDATA[Access to legal aid is a cornerstone of the right to a fair trial, yet its availability and quality in Indonesia’s district courts remain inconsistent. This study examines how access to legal aid affects the fairness of criminal proceedings, particularly for indigent defendants. Using field data from several district courts, combined with interviews and case file reviews, the research evaluates whether legal aid provision ensures meaningful representation and protects procedural rights. The findings indicate that while legal aid institutions play a crucial role, systemic limitations—such as underfunding, lack of qualified personnel, and late-stage intervention—undermine their effectiveness. Furthermore, judicial attitudes and procedural constraints often limit the substantive impact of legal aid. The study contributes to ongoing debates on justice sector reform by highlighting the urgent need to strengthen legal aid systems at the grassroots level. It also underscores the broader implications of legal aid for legal empowerment, access to justice, and human rights protection in Indonesia’s legal landscape.]]>
<![CDATA[The Political-Legal Implications of the Constitutional Court's Ruling on the Omnibus Law ]]>
<![CDATA[Maya Wulandari]]>
<![CDATA[ Indonesian Court and Justice Review Vol. 1 No. 3 (2024): August, 2024 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[COLLEGIUM JUSTICIA INDONESIA ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65815/1z0phr98
<![CDATA[The Constitutional Court's ruling on Indonesia’s controversial Omnibus Law on Job Creation has sparked significant political and legal debate. This study analyzes the broader implications of the Court's decision, particularly its finding of "conditionally unconstitutional" status, and its impact on the balance of powers, democratic accountability, and legal certainty. By employing a doctrinal and socio-legal approach, the research assesses the ruling's legal reasoning, political context, and institutional consequences. The findings suggest that while the Court sought to uphold procedural constitutionalism, its ambiguous formulation may have inadvertently weakened the force of judicial review and allowed for executive dominance. The study also examines how various stakeholders—including civil society, labor unions, and political elites—responded to the decision. The novelty of this research lies in its focus on the intersection of judicial decisions and legislative-executive dynamics. It contributes to broader discussions on constitutional resilience, governance, and the evolving role of the judiciary in democratic consolidation.]]>
<![CDATA[Corporate Accountability in Law Enforcement: Challenges in Proving and Punishing Corporate Crimes ]]>
<![CDATA[Indah Sri Utari]]>;
<![CDATA[Cahya Wulandari]]>;
<![CDATA[Ridwan Arifin]]>
<![CDATA[ Indonesian Court and Justice Review Vol. 1 No. 3 (2024): August, 2024 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[COLLEGIUM JUSTICIA INDONESIA ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65815/4taz4v42
<![CDATA[Corporate crime poses a growing threat to economic integrity, public safety, and environmental sustainability, yet legal systems often struggle to hold corporations accountable. This study explores the challenges faced by Indonesian law enforcement agencies and courts in proving and prosecuting corporate crimes, ranging from environmental violations to corruption and financial fraud. Through analysis of selected case studies, court judgments, and interviews with prosecutors, investigators, and legal scholars, the research identifies key barriers such as evidentiary complexity, corporate shielding structures, weak regulatory frameworks, and institutional reluctance. The study highlights the limitations of current legal tools in attributing liability to corporate entities, especially in the absence of clear standards for corporate intent and culpability. It also discusses recent legal reforms and their potential to improve enforcement. The novelty of this study lies in its comprehensive examination of both procedural and structural barriers to corporate accountability. It offers policy recommendations for strengthening corporate criminal liability mechanisms and ensuring that justice is not evaded through legal and institutional loopholes.]]>
<![CDATA[Legal Certainty and Arbitration in Indonesia: Striking a Balance Between Efficiency and Substantive Justice ]]>
<![CDATA[Intan Permata]]>;
<![CDATA[Fajar Arif Nugraha]]>
<![CDATA[ Indonesian Court and Justice Review Vol. 1 No. 4 (2024): November, 2024 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[COLLEGIUM JUSTICIA INDONESIA ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65815/4bj4yb51
<![CDATA[Arbitration has become an increasingly preferred dispute resolution mechanism in Indonesia due to its efficiency, confidentiality, and finality. However, concerns remain regarding its ability to ensure substantive justice and legal certainty. This study examines the Indonesian arbitration framework, focusing on the tension between procedural efficiency and the delivery of fair outcomes. Using doctrinal analysis and selected case studies, the research evaluates the enforcement of arbitral awards, judicial intervention in arbitration proceedings, and the legal standards applied by courts when reviewing arbitration-related matters. The findings indicate that while Indonesia’s Arbitration Law provides a clear legal basis for arbitral independence and finality, inconsistent judicial interpretation and limited oversight mechanisms can lead to uncertainty and unpredictability. This raises critical questions about how to ensure justice without undermining the core efficiency values of arbitration. The novelty of this study lies in its effort to bridge the normative objectives of arbitration with the evolving expectations of justice in complex commercial disputes. As arbitration continues to expand within Indonesia’s legal landscape, especially in cross-border matters, striking a balance between speed and fairness becomes increasingly urgent. The study contributes to policy debates by offering recommendations to strengthen legal certainty, improve judicial consistency, and enhance the integrity of the arbitration process without compromising its core advantages.]]>
<![CDATA[Relevance of Classical Criminal Law Principles in the Handling of Cybercrimes ]]>
<![CDATA[Indung Wijayanto]]>;
<![CDATA[Ali Masyhar]]>;
<![CDATA[Winarsih Winarsih]]>
<![CDATA[ Indonesian Court and Justice Review Vol. 1 No. 4 (2024): November, 2024 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[COLLEGIUM JUSTICIA INDONESIA ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65815/zvm2mz93
<![CDATA[Cybercrime presents a significant challenge to traditional legal frameworks, particularly classical criminal law principles such as legality (nullum crimen sine lege), culpability, and proportionality. This study explores the extent to which these foundational principles remain relevant and applicable in Indonesia’s approach to cybercrime. Drawing upon legal doctrinal analysis and statutory review, as well as selected court decisions involving cyber defamation, hacking, and data theft, the research critically assesses how classical principles are being interpreted and adapted in digital contexts. The findings reveal a complex legal landscape: while the principles of legality and culpability continue to serve as cornerstones of criminal justice, ambiguities in cybercrime legislation and expansive interpretations by courts may undermine legal predictability and individual protections. For instance, the broad language of the Electronic Information and Transactions (EIT) Law often clashes with the requirement of specificity in criminal law. This study argues that a careful recalibration of classical doctrines is needed—one that maintains legal safeguards while allowing flexibility in addressing evolving digital harms. The novelty of the research lies in its re-examination of enduring criminal law theories in light of contemporary challenges, offering doctrinal and policy insights for reform. As cybercrime grows more sophisticated, ensuring that criminal law remains principled yet adaptable is both a legal and ethical imperative.]]>
<![CDATA[Judicial Precedents on Privacy Rights: Court Rulings in the Digital Era ]]>
<![CDATA[Ratih Damayanti]]>;
<![CDATA[Duhita Driyah Suprapti]]>;
<![CDATA[Rohmat Rohmat]]>
<![CDATA[ Indonesian Court and Justice Review Vol. 1 No. 4 (2024): November, 2024 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[COLLEGIUM JUSTICIA INDONESIA ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65815/j5xmja79
<![CDATA[As digital technologies become increasingly embedded in everyday life, courts in Indonesia are increasingly required to define the scope and limits of privacy rights. This study examines judicial precedents that address privacy in the context of surveillance, data protection, and digital expression, particularly in light of the absence of a comprehensive data protection law until recently. Using qualitative content analysis of Constitutional Court and Supreme Court decisions, this research investigates how Indonesian courts have interpreted privacy within constitutional and statutory frameworks. The findings show a growing recognition of privacy as a fundamental right, though judicial reasoning remains inconsistent and often lacks a clear doctrinal foundation. In several landmark cases, courts have acknowledged the importance of protecting personal data and private communications, but have struggled to balance privacy with competing state interests such as national security or public morality. This study highlights the urgent need for a coherent judicial approach to privacy, especially as digital surveillance and data misuse become more prevalent. The novelty of this research lies in mapping the evolving jurisprudence on privacy and proposing a normative framework for more consistent judicial protection. By critically analyzing court practices, the study contributes to ongoing discussions about constitutional rights in the digital age and the role of judicial precedents in shaping data governance.]]>
<![CDATA[Public Pressure and Judicial Independence: The Influence on High-Profile Court Rulings ]]>
<![CDATA[Nurul Izzah Maulana Putri]]>
<![CDATA[ Indonesian Court and Justice Review Vol. 1 No. 4 (2024): November, 2024 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[COLLEGIUM JUSTICIA INDONESIA ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65815/svkd3y50
<![CDATA[Judicial independence is a fundamental pillar of democratic governance, yet courts are not immune to external pressures—particularly in high-profile cases that attract public and media scrutiny. This study explores the extent to which public opinion, media framing, and political discourse influence judicial behavior in Indonesia. Focusing on a selection of high-profile criminal and constitutional cases, the research analyzes court decisions, media coverage, and public reactions to assess whether and how judges respond to societal pressures. Drawing from legal-sociological perspectives and judicial behavior theory, the findings suggest that while formal guarantees of judicial independence exist, informal influences can shape outcomes in subtle ways. Judges may adopt a cautious or populist approach, especially when cases involve public morality, political interests, or mass mobilization. The study underscores the tension between the need for courts to be responsive to societal values and the imperative to remain impartial and legally grounded. The novelty of this research lies in its empirical focus on Indonesia, where judicial legitimacy often hinges on navigating competing demands from the state, society, and legal norms. This study contributes to broader debates on judicial accountability and offers recommendations for strengthening institutional safeguards that protect courts from undue external influence.]]>
<![CDATA[Constitutional Rights of Citizens and State Power Limits: Perspectives from the Constitutional Court ]]>
<![CDATA[Rodiyah Rodiyah]]>;
<![CDATA[Zidney Ilma Faadza]]>;
<![CDATA[Moh. Imam Gusthomi]]>
<![CDATA[ Indonesian Court and Justice Review Vol. 1 No. 4 (2024): November, 2024 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[COLLEGIUM JUSTICIA INDONESIA ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65815/p32mn266
<![CDATA[The Indonesian Constitutional Court plays a pivotal role in interpreting the boundaries between state authority and the constitutional rights of its citizens. This study investigates how the Court has shaped the balance between individual rights and state power through its rulings, particularly in cases involving freedom of expression, religious rights, and state security. Employing a doctrinal approach combined with case analysis, the research explores the Court's reasoning in resolving tensions between competing constitutional values. The findings demonstrate that the Court often positions itself as a mediator between constitutional guarantees and the realities of political governance. While some rulings have expanded civil liberties, others reflect a deferential stance toward state power, particularly in contexts involving public order or national unity. This duality raises important questions about the Court's long-term role in consolidating democratic values and protecting minority rights. The novelty of this study lies in its systematic assessment of the Court’s jurisprudence on rights limitations, offering insights into the evolving nature of constitutional interpretation in Indonesia. As debates on authoritarianism, pluralism, and civil liberties intensify, understanding how courts delineate the limits of state power becomes increasingly crucial.]]>
