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[Sustaining Judicial Reform: An Evaluation of the National Action Plan for Judicial Reform 2020–2025 ]]>
<![CDATA[Firzha Amartha Dewi]]>
<![CDATA[ Indonesian Court and Justice Review Vol. 2 No. 1 (2025): February, 2025 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[COLLEGIUM JUSTICIA INDONESIA ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65815/8rmzvy74
<![CDATA[Judicial reform in Indonesia has long been a strategic priority to enhance transparency, accountability, and public trust in the justice system. The National Action Plan for Judicial Reform 2020–2025 (Rencana Aksi Nasional Reformasi Peradilan) marks the latest institutional effort to address persistent issues such as corruption, inefficiency, and lack of access to justice. This study evaluates the implementation and effectiveness of the Action Plan, focusing on its core pillars: institutional strengthening, case management reform, integrity-building, and public access. Using a qualitative methodology, including policy analysis, interviews with judicial stakeholders, and reviews of implementation reports, the study finds that while the Plan has brought procedural improvements—such as digitalization and case tracking systems—substantive reform outcomes remain uneven. Key challenges include weak inter-agency coordination, limited political commitment, and a lack of independent oversight. Moreover, external pressures, such as political dynamics and budget constraints, have diluted reform momentum. The novelty of this study lies in its mid-term evaluation of a state-driven reform agenda in a hybrid democratic-legal setting. It argues that sustaining judicial reform requires not only institutional strategies but also civic engagement, judicial leadership, and regulatory coherence. This research contributes to broader regional discussions on justice sector reform in emerging democracies and provides policy recommendations for enhancing the effectiveness and sustainability of reform initiatives in Indonesia.]]>
<![CDATA[The Effectiveness of the Judicial Commission in Upholding Judicial Integrity: Between Expectations and Reality ]]>
<![CDATA[Achmad Irham Musyaffar]]>;
<![CDATA[David Hadiputro]]>
<![CDATA[ Indonesian Court and Justice Review Vol. 2 No. 1 (2025): February, 2025 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[COLLEGIUM JUSTICIA INDONESIA ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65815/6vmccx67
<![CDATA[The Judicial Commission of Indonesia was established to promote integrity and accountability within the judiciary. Despite its constitutional mandate, the Commission's effectiveness remains a subject of contention. This study investigates the performance of the Judicial Commission in addressing ethical violations, reviewing judicial conduct, and maintaining public trust in the judicial system. Drawing from institutional reports, case data, and expert interviews, the research examines the gap between the Commission’s legal authority and its operational capacity. Findings reveal that while the Commission has received thousands of public complaints, its ability to enforce sanctions is limited by legal ambiguities, resistance from judicial institutions, and restricted investigatory powers. The Constitutional Court’s decisions narrowing the Commission’s authority further weaken its oversight function. The study underscores a persistent mismatch between public expectations and the institutional constraints the Commission faces. The novelty lies in its critical institutional assessment post-reform, highlighting the need to redefine the Commission’s role within the broader judicial governance framework. This study contributes to the discourse on judicial accountability by exploring how independent oversight bodies operate within constrained legal-political environments. It also offers concrete recommendations to enhance the Commission’s legitimacy, legal mandate, and cooperation with the Supreme Court, ensuring a more effective system of judicial discipline in Indonesia.]]>
<![CDATA[The Dualism of Court Institutions: Challenges in Harmonizing the National Legal System ]]>
<![CDATA[Fadhel Arjuna Adinda]]>
<![CDATA[ Indonesian Court and Justice Review Vol. 2 No. 1 (2025): February, 2025 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[COLLEGIUM JUSTICIA INDONESIA ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65815/kccp3m30
<![CDATA[Indonesia’s judiciary is characterized by institutional dualism, with multiple court jurisdictions—general, religious, military, administrative—operating under a decentralized and often fragmented legal framework. This structural dualism presents ongoing challenges in achieving coherence, consistency, and legal unity. This study explores the implications of such institutional fragmentation for legal harmonization and judicial efficiency. Through a doctrinal and comparative legal analysis, combined with field interviews and policy reviews, the research investigates areas where overlapping jurisdiction, conflicting procedural norms, and divergent judicial training contribute to inconsistency in legal interpretation and public confusion. The findings show that, although the integration of judicial administration under the Supreme Court was a step toward unification, substantive harmonization remains elusive. This has led to jurisdictional conflicts, especially in areas such as family law, land disputes, and administrative oversight. The novelty of the study lies in its critical appraisal of judicial dualism from both structural and functional perspectives. It argues that harmonization efforts must go beyond administrative integration and address deeper issues of legal culture, normative hierarchy, and cross-jurisdictional jurisprudence. This research offers recommendations for improving coordination across courts, standardizing procedural rules, and fostering a more unified national legal identity. As Indonesia continues to develop its legal infrastructure, addressing judicial dualism is vital to enhancing legal certainty and access to justice.]]>
<![CDATA[Protecting Children in the Judicial Process: Is the Indonesian Legal System Child-Friendly? ]]>
<![CDATA[Rasdi Rasdi]]>;
<![CDATA[Anis Widyawati]]>
<![CDATA[ Indonesian Court and Justice Review Vol. 2 No. 1 (2025): February, 2025 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[COLLEGIUM JUSTICIA INDONESIA ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65815/hdr78233
<![CDATA[Ensuring child-friendly justice is a fundamental component of a rights-based legal system. In Indonesia, while legislative reforms—such as the Juvenile Justice System Law (Law No. 11/2012)—aim to protect children's rights during legal proceedings, implementation gaps persist. This study evaluates the extent to which the Indonesian legal system upholds child protection principles in criminal and civil judicial processes. Drawing on case analysis, field observations in child courts, and interviews with judges, lawyers, and child protection agencies, the research assesses procedural safeguards, restorative justice practices, and institutional support for child litigants. The findings indicate that although progress has been made in establishing special courts and diverting children from detention, significant challenges remain: lack of trained personnel, inadequate victim support systems, and limited awareness among law enforcement. Furthermore, the adversarial nature of courtrooms often fails to accommodate the psychological needs of children, especially in sensitive cases like abuse or custody disputes. This study’s novelty lies in its empirical grounding and child-centered approach, offering a multidimensional evaluation of the justice system’s responsiveness to children’s rights. It contributes to the broader discussion on legal reform by emphasizing the need for systemic changes in judicial attitudes, courtroom procedures, and inter-agency coordination. The study concludes with policy recommendations aimed at strengthening child-sensitive justice in Indonesia.]]>
<![CDATA[Judicial Independence in Indonesia Amidst the Rise of Political Populism: A Post-Pandemic Dilemma ]]>
<![CDATA[Andry Wikra Wardhana Mamonto]]>;
<![CDATA[Firdaus Arifin]]>;
<![CDATA[Eko Nuriyatman]]>
<![CDATA[ Indonesian Court and Justice Review Vol. 2 No. 1 (2025): February, 2025 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[COLLEGIUM JUSTICIA INDONESIA ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65815/1jabp888
<![CDATA[Judicial independence is a foundational principle of democratic governance, yet it faces increasing threats in many parts of the world—including Indonesia—amid the resurgence of political populism. This study examines how the rise of populist narratives and post-pandemic political consolidation affect the independence of the judiciary in Indonesia. By analyzing political discourse, court decisions in politically sensitive cases, and institutional developments since the COVID-19 pandemic, the research identifies trends of politicization, erosion of checks and balances, and public distrust toward judicial institutions. The findings reveal a growing pattern where populist actors frame the judiciary as an elite obstacle to the "will of the people," thereby undermining its legitimacy. Moreover, executive influence over judicial appointments and budgetary controls further weakens institutional autonomy. The pandemic has exacerbated these dynamics, with emergency legislation and fast-tracked policies often bypassing judicial scrutiny. The novelty of this research lies in its intersectional analysis of judicial independence, populism, and pandemic-era governance. It contributes to both the Indonesian and global discourse on democratic backsliding by highlighting how structural and discursive tactics can be used to constrain judicial authority. The study calls for renewed safeguards—legal, institutional, and cultural—to protect judicial independence in the face of shifting political climates.]]>
<![CDATA[The Indonesian Constitutional Court and the 2024 Presidential Election: A New Role in Electoral Integrity? ]]>
<![CDATA[Muhammad Asmawi]]>;
<![CDATA[Amiludin Amiludin]]>
<![CDATA[ Indonesian Court and Justice Review Vol. 2 No. 2 (2025): May, 2025 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[COLLEGIUM JUSTICIA INDONESIA ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65815/ermhzm84
<![CDATA[The 2024 Presidential Election in Indonesia has positioned the Constitutional Court as a pivotal institution in safeguarding electoral integrity. Historically tasked with resolving electoral disputes, the Court’s expanded involvement in pre-election processes, including candidate eligibility and the interpretation of constitutional requirements, has raised critical questions about its neutrality, legitimacy, and institutional boundaries. This study analyzes the evolving role of the Constitutional Court in the 2024 electoral context, particularly its controversial ruling on age requirements for presidential and vice-presidential candidates. Employing a legal-political analysis, this research examines court decisions, political discourse, and media framing to understand how judicial interpretations affect public trust and the democratic process. The findings suggest a shift in the Court’s function—from a post-election arbiter to a proactive political actor—creating tensions between legal reasoning and perceived political alignment. While some decisions have contributed to legal clarity, others have sparked accusations of partisanship and judicial activism. The study highlights the broader implications of this trend for the separation of powers, rule of law, and democratic consolidation in Indonesia. The novelty lies in its timely analysis of the 2024 election as a legal stress test for the Court’s institutional credibility. It offers recommendations to reinforce judicial independence and electoral accountability in future cycles.]]>
<![CDATA[Legalizing Defamation or Protecting Free Speech? The Indonesian Court’s Rulings on Digital Libel in the Age of Social Media ]]>
<![CDATA[Muhammad Azil Maskur]]>;
<![CDATA[Ridwan Arifin]]>;
<![CDATA[Benny Sumardiana]]>
<![CDATA[ Indonesian Court and Justice Review Vol. 2 No. 2 (2025): May, 2025 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[COLLEGIUM JUSTICIA INDONESIA ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65815/asda9739
<![CDATA[As digital communication becomes increasingly central to public discourse, courts in Indonesia face growing pressure to balance the right to free speech with protections against defamation, particularly in online settings. This study examines judicial decisions related to digital libel, especially under the controversial Electronic Information and Transactions (EIT) Law, which has been criticized for its vague definitions and potential to criminalize dissent. Using case law analysis and doctrinal review, the research assesses how courts interpret the boundaries between expression, public interest, and reputational harm in the age of social media. The findings reveal a judicial pattern that often prioritizes social order and morality over individual rights, resulting in convictions that may stifle legitimate criticism and public participation. While some rulings attempt to incorporate constitutional protections of freedom of expression, inconsistencies in judicial reasoning and the discretionary use of the EIT Law continue to create legal uncertainty. This study argues that the current jurisprudence risks normalizing the criminalization of speech, particularly when used by state actors against critics and journalists. The novelty of this research lies in its focus on digital-era defamation from a rights-based perspective, highlighting the tension between outdated legal frameworks and emerging digital realities. Policy and judicial reform are urgently needed to ensure that defamation law protects reputations without undermining democratic freedoms.]]>
<![CDATA[The Impact of the Omnibus Law on Indonesia's Judicial System: Efficiency or Erosion of Legal Protections? ]]>
<![CDATA[Muhammad Fajri]]>;
<![CDATA[Ibrahim Nur Cahyo]]>
<![CDATA[ Indonesian Court and Justice Review Vol. 2 No. 2 (2025): May, 2025 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[COLLEGIUM JUSTICIA INDONESIA ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65815/cxvvjn82
<![CDATA[The Omnibus Law on Job Creation, enacted in 2020 and amended in 2023, was presented as a transformative reform aimed at streamlining bureaucracy and improving Indonesia’s investment climate. However, its far-reaching legislative changes have also triggered concerns about the erosion of legal protections, including implications for the judicial system. This study critically examines the legal and institutional impact of the Omnibus Law on judicial procedures, labor dispute resolution, and environmental adjudication. Using a doctrinal analysis combined with policy review and expert interviews, the research investigates whether the pursuit of administrative efficiency compromises procedural justice and judicial independence. The findings suggest that while the Omnibus Law reduces regulatory complexity, it also narrows avenues for legal challenge, limits public participation, and accelerates processes in ways that may bypass substantive review. The judiciary’s role is further constrained by shifting legal standards and reduced discretion in certain sectors. The novelty of this research lies in its legal-institutional assessment of judicial capacity post-Omnibus reform. The study contributes to broader debates on deregulation, rule of law, and access to justice in developing democracies. It argues that true efficiency must be balanced with robust safeguards to ensure that economic reforms do not weaken the judiciary’s role as a check on executive and legislative overreach.]]>
<![CDATA[The New Face of Corruption Trials in Indonesia: Political Influence, Public Perception, and Judicial Accountability ]]>
<![CDATA[Ridwan Arifin]]>;
<![CDATA[Auliya Rochman]]>;
<![CDATA[Ayon Diniyanto]]>;
<![CDATA[Rizki Sulthoni]]>
<![CDATA[ Indonesian Court and Justice Review Vol. 2 No. 2 (2025): May, 2025 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[COLLEGIUM JUSTICIA INDONESIA ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65815/31njav88
<![CDATA[Corruption trials in Indonesia have long been viewed as both a test and a symbol of judicial integrity. In recent years, however, shifts in political dynamics and public sentiment have reshaped the way corruption cases are prosecuted and adjudicated. This study investigates the changing nature of corruption trials in Indonesia by examining recent high-profile cases, the role of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), and the judiciary’s response under increased political scrutiny. Using case study analysis, media reviews, and legal documentation, the research explores how political influence and public pressure affect prosecutorial discretion, judicial decisions, and institutional accountability. The findings reveal a growing concern over selective enforcement, perceived leniency toward political elites, and the weakening of anti-corruption institutions. Public trust in judicial outcomes is increasingly contingent on transparency and the appearance of impartiality, yet courts often struggle to maintain credibility in politically charged contexts. The novelty of this study lies in its integrated analysis of legal processes, political pressure, and societal expectations. It argues that restoring public confidence in corruption trials requires not only institutional reform but also judicial courage and systemic insulation from partisan influence. The study contributes to comparative discussions on judicial accountability in transitional democracies.]]>
<![CDATA[Climate Change and Environmental Law: The Indonesian Court’s Role in Enforcing Sustainable Development ]]>
<![CDATA[Zulfikar Zulfikar]]>;
<![CDATA[Harrison Wood]]>
<![CDATA[ Indonesian Court and Justice Review Vol. 2 No. 2 (2025): May, 2025 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[COLLEGIUM JUSTICIA INDONESIA ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65815/qjyvbe37
<![CDATA[As climate change intensifies environmental degradation in Indonesia, courts are increasingly called upon to adjudicate disputes involving ecological harm, regulatory compliance, and government accountability. This study examines the role of Indonesian courts in promoting sustainable development through environmental law enforcement, with a focus on recent landmark decisions involving deforestation, pollution, and climate-related litigation. Using a combination of doctrinal analysis and case review, the research assesses how judicial bodies interpret environmental protection laws, apply the precautionary and intergenerational equity principles, and balance environmental concerns with economic development agendas. The findings demonstrate that courts have occasionally issued progressive rulings—holding corporations and government agencies accountable—but enforcement remains uneven due to legal ambiguities, lack of technical expertise, and institutional limitations. The novelty of this study lies in its analysis of climate-related jurisprudence within a developing country context, offering insights into how judicial activism can contribute to environmental governance. The research also identifies structural barriers that hinder judicial effectiveness, including limited access to environmental evidence, procedural hurdles, and weak implementation mechanisms. It concludes by proposing reforms to enhance the judiciary’s capacity in climate adjudication and strengthen legal frameworks for environmental protection in Indonesia.]]>
