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[Religious Minorities and the Indonesian Judiciary: Legal Protection or Institutionalized Discrimination? ]]>
<![CDATA[Sophie Brown]]>;
<![CDATA[Grace Evans]]>
<![CDATA[ Indonesian Court and Justice Review Vol. 2 No. 3 (2025): August, 2025 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[COLLEGIUM JUSTICIA INDONESIA ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65815/tx6h6j67
<![CDATA[Indonesia’s constitutional commitment to religious freedom often stands in contrast to the lived experiences of religious minorities, particularly in the context of judicial processes. This study critically examines how the Indonesian judiciary has handled cases involving religious minority groups, focusing on whether the courts serve as protectors of minority rights or inadvertently reinforce systemic discrimination. Through an analysis of key court decisions, including blasphemy cases and disputes over places of worship, the research explores legal reasoning, procedural fairness, and alignment with international human rights standards. Findings reveal a pattern in which the judiciary, under pressure from dominant social and political forces, frequently prioritizes public order over the protection of minority rights. Legal provisions such as the Blasphemy Law (UU No. 1/PNPS/1965) are often applied broadly, enabling selective prosecution and legitimizing societal intolerance. While some rulings affirm constitutional guarantees, inconsistent application of the law undermines trust in the judiciary's impartiality. The novelty of this study lies in its empirical and doctrinal analysis of judicial treatment of religious minorities, highlighting institutional and normative challenges. This research contributes to debates on religious pluralism, constitutionalism, and the role of courts in protecting vulnerable populations in a plural society.]]>
<![CDATA[The 2022 Criminal Code Revision: A Step Forward or a Backslide for Civil Liberties in Indonesia? ]]>
<![CDATA[Muhtar Agung Kusuma]]>;
<![CDATA[Ahmad Zikri]]>
<![CDATA[ Indonesian Court and Justice Review Vol. 2 No. 3 (2025): August, 2025 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[COLLEGIUM JUSTICIA INDONESIA ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65815/xphrxf91
<![CDATA[The 2022 revision of Indonesia’s Criminal Code (KUHP) represents the most comprehensive overhaul of the country's penal law since independence. While proponents argue that the revision modernizes the legal system, critics have raised concerns over provisions that may curtail civil liberties, criminalize morality, and restrict freedom of expression. This study evaluates the implications of the new Criminal Code on fundamental rights, using a doctrinal approach supported by constitutional analysis and international human rights benchmarks. Key provisions analyzed include articles related to cohabitation, insults to the president, blasphemy, and protest regulation. Findings suggest that, despite attempts to harmonize customary norms and formal law, the Code introduces vague and overly broad clauses that could be misused to silence dissent and enforce moral conformity. Furthermore, the legislative process, marked by limited public consultation and swift ratification, raises questions about democratic legitimacy. The study argues that the 2022 revision reflects a broader trend of conservative legalism in Indonesia, where legal reform is used not to expand freedoms but to reinforce state control. The novelty lies in its comprehensive legal-constitutional analysis of the revised KUHP in light of democratic regression and civil rights. This research contributes to global conversations on the balance between legal reform, cultural pluralism, and the protection of civil liberties.]]>
<![CDATA[Judicial Reforms in Indonesia's Local Courts: Improving Access to Justice or Perpetuating Inequities? ]]>
<![CDATA[Andi Perangin Angin]]>;
<![CDATA[Ahmad Fahruddin]]>
<![CDATA[ Indonesian Court and Justice Review Vol. 2 No. 3 (2025): August, 2025 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[COLLEGIUM JUSTICIA INDONESIA ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65815/0frxw140
<![CDATA[Judicial reform in Indonesia has long focused on central institutions, yet the performance of local courts remains a key determinant of citizens' everyday access to justice. This study investigates whether recent judicial reform initiatives—such as digitalization, case tracking systems, and integrated services—have improved the accessibility, fairness, and responsiveness of local courts. Using qualitative fieldwork in several district courts, combined with interviews and policy analysis, the research explores the impact of reform on marginalized communities, including rural populations and low-income litigants. While technological innovations have enhanced administrative efficiency and transparency, findings suggest that socio-economic and geographic disparities continue to shape unequal access to legal remedies. Key barriers include digital illiteracy, language limitations, and limited legal aid availability. Furthermore, local courts often reflect broader power imbalances, with elites receiving more favorable treatment. The novelty of this study lies in its localized, ground-level evaluation of judicial reform, highlighting how national-level policy often fails to account for structural inequities on the ground. The research argues that meaningful access to justice requires not only institutional modernization but also a justice system that actively addresses social inequality. This study contributes to ongoing discussions on legal empowerment and inclusive justice reform in decentralized legal systems.]]>
<![CDATA[Between Justice and Development: How the Indonesian Courts Are Handling Land Disputes in the Face of Industrial Expansion ]]>
<![CDATA[Asmarani Ramli]]>;
<![CDATA[Aprila Niravita]]>;
<![CDATA[Suhadi Suhadi]]>
<![CDATA[ Indonesian Court and Justice Review Vol. 2 No. 3 (2025): August, 2025 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[COLLEGIUM JUSTICIA INDONESIA ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65815/56wg3592
<![CDATA[Land disputes in Indonesia have intensified with rapid industrial expansion, infrastructure development, and agribusiness growth, often pitting local communities against state-backed corporate interests. This study analyzes how Indonesian courts adjudicate land conflicts, particularly those involving indigenous communities, smallholders, and rural populations affected by development projects. Employing case analysis, field observation, and interviews with litigants, judges, and legal aid providers, the research assesses the judiciary’s capacity to uphold land rights and environmental justice amid developmental pressures. Findings reveal a systemic bias favoring formal land title holders—typically corporations or state entities—over customary or informal land claims. Procedural barriers, lack of legal recognition for indigenous tenure, and limited judicial expertise on land law further disadvantage vulnerable claimants. While some progressive rulings exist, their impact remains limited due to weak enforcement and institutional fragmentation. This study’s novelty lies in its intersectional analysis of land, law, and development, offering a critical lens on how legal institutions mediate conflicts in resource governance. It argues that unless the judiciary is empowered and reoriented toward distributive justice, courts risk becoming instruments of dispossession rather than protectors of rights. The study contributes to wider debates on sustainable development, legal pluralism, and judicial independence in resource-rich developing countries.]]>
<![CDATA[Human Rights in the Digital Age: The Indonesian Judiciary's Response to Internet Censorship and Privacy Laws ]]>
<![CDATA[Wahyu Nandang Irmawan]]>;
<![CDATA[Arif Bima Pratama]]>;
<![CDATA[Mai Lan Chi]]>;
<![CDATA[Vann Kosal Rith]]>
<![CDATA[ Indonesian Court and Justice Review Vol. 2 No. 3 (2025): August, 2025 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[COLLEGIUM JUSTICIA INDONESIA ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65815/sxen5f47
<![CDATA[The digital transformation of society has introduced new challenges to the protection of human rights in Indonesia, particularly concerning internet censorship, privacy, and freedom of expression. This study explores how the Indonesian judiciary has responded to these emerging legal and ethical dilemmas through case rulings and constitutional review. Focusing on key decisions involving the Electronic Information and Transactions (EIT) Law, data surveillance, and content regulation, the research assesses whether courts have served as defenders of digital rights or enablers of state control. Using doctrinal analysis and comparative jurisprudence, the findings reveal a cautious and often inconsistent approach by the judiciary. While some rulings affirm the right to privacy and digital expression, others uphold government-imposed restrictions in the name of public morality, national security, or religious values. The lack of a comprehensive data protection regime until recently further complicates judicial interpretations. The study argues that the judiciary’s role is critical in setting normative boundaries in the digital realm, but current jurisprudence reflects an underdeveloped rights-based framework. The novelty of this research lies in its focus on how constitutional and administrative courts grapple with 21st-century rights issues in a legal system shaped by rapid technological and political change. The study contributes to global debates on digital governance, legal adaptation, and judicial protection of rights in the digital era.]]>
<![CDATA[Between Morality and Legality: Court Justice and Judicial Interpretation in Blasphemy Cases ]]>
<![CDATA[Arvan Dalia]]>;
<![CDATA[Sebastian Nayla Coren]]>
<![CDATA[ Indonesian Court and Justice Review Vol. 2 No. 4 (2025): November, 2025 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[COLLEGIUM JUSTICIA INDONESIA ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65815/mkcskd43
<![CDATA[Blasphemy cases in Indonesia present a complex intersection between criminal law, religious norms, and constitutional guarantees. Judicial handling of such cases has generated debate regarding impartiality and court justice. This paper examines how judges interpret blasphemy provisions and the implications of such interpretation for judicial neutrality. Through doctrinal analysis of statutory provisions and selected blasphemy judgments, the study explores how moral and religious considerations are incorporated into legal reasoning. The analysis suggests that judicial interpretation often extends beyond textual legality, blurring the boundary between legal judgment and moral evaluation. By examining blasphemy adjudication as a test case for court justice, the paper highlights the challenges faced by courts in pluralistic societies. It raises broader questions about the role of judges in balancing societal values with constitutional principles of legality and equality before the law.]]>
<![CDATA[Procedural Justice on Paper, Substantive Injustice in Practice? Pretrial Rulings (Praperadilan) and Rights Protection ]]>
<![CDATA[Corina Putri Andhika]]>;
<![CDATA[Johan Elian Varko]]>
<![CDATA[ Indonesian Court and Justice Review Vol. 2 No. 4 (2025): November, 2025 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[COLLEGIUM JUSTICIA INDONESIA ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65815/f7n7x091
<![CDATA[Pretrial proceedings (praperadilan) are designed to safeguard individual rights against arbitrary law enforcement actions. In practice, however, pretrial rulings in Indonesia have produced inconsistent interpretations and outcomes. This paper examines the role of praperadilan in shaping court justice within the criminal justice process. Using normative analysis of criminal procedure law and selected pretrial decisions, the study explores how judges interpret procedural safeguards such as lawful arrest, detention, and suspect determination. The findings suggest that expansive or restrictive interpretations of praperadilan jurisdiction significantly affect access to judicial protection. By analyzing pretrial adjudication as a form of rights-based justice, the paper highlights tensions between procedural legality and substantive fairness. It argues that inconsistent judicial approaches risk transforming praperadilan into a formalistic ritual rather than an effective mechanism for court justice.]]>
<![CDATA[Justice Without Explanation? The Normative Crisis of Judicial Reasoning in Indonesian Summary Judgments ]]>
<![CDATA[Jarek Solen]]>;
<![CDATA[Mohd Iskardar Muda Ahmad Fikri]]>
<![CDATA[ Indonesian Court and Justice Review Vol. 2 No. 4 (2025): November, 2025 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[COLLEGIUM JUSTICIA INDONESIA ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65815/27jgex37
<![CDATA[The obligation of judges to provide adequate legal reasoning is a fundamental element of court justice. In Indonesian judicial practice, however, summary and formulaic judgments remain common, particularly in lower courts. This paper examines the normative implications of minimalist judicial reasoning for court justice in Indonesia. Through doctrinal analysis of procedural law and selected court decisions, the study explores how abbreviated reasoning affects transparency, legal certainty, and the right of parties to understand judicial outcomes. The analysis suggests that while efficiency is often invoked to justify concise judgments, excessive reliance on standard reasoning undermines the deliberative character of adjudication. By situating judicial reasoning within the broader discourse of fair trial principles, the paper highlights a normative gap between formal procedural compliance and substantive justice. It argues that court justice is not solely determined by outcomes, but by the quality of justification offered by judges. The discussion raises questions about whether current judicial practices adequately reflect constitutional guarantees of due process and accountability.]]>
<![CDATA[When Final is Not Fair: Court Justice and the Doctrine of Finality in Constitutional Court Decisions ]]>
<![CDATA[Martin Sidabutar]]>;
<![CDATA[Jane Carolina Gunawan]]>
<![CDATA[ Indonesian Court and Justice Review Vol. 2 No. 4 (2025): November, 2025 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[COLLEGIUM JUSTICIA INDONESIA ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65815/e9sqr578
<![CDATA[Decisions of the Indonesian Constitutional Court are constitutionally defined as final and binding. While this doctrine aims to ensure legal certainty, it also raises concerns regarding court justice, particularly when decisions generate persistent controversy. This paper examines how the principle of finality interacts with notions of fairness and accountability in constitutional adjudication. Using normative constitutional analysis and selected Constitutional Court cases, the study explores situations in which final decisions have been criticized for limited reasoning, procedural irregularities, or significant societal impact. The analysis suggests that absolute finality may constrain opportunities for correction and deliberation, especially in cases involving fundamental rights. By examining finality as a normative choice rather than a neutral rule, the paper highlights its implications for court justice. It invites reconsideration of whether constitutional justice requires mechanisms for institutional self-correction, even within a system that prioritizes legal certainty.]]>
<![CDATA[Selective Equality Before the Law? Sentencing Disparities and Court Justice in Indonesian Corruption Cases ]]>
<![CDATA[Ridwan Arifin]]>;
<![CDATA[Ikram Nur Fuady]]>;
<![CDATA[Fadhel Arjuna Adinda]]>;
<![CDATA[Shofriya Qonitatin Abidah]]>
<![CDATA[ Indonesian Court and Justice Review Vol. 2 No. 4 (2025): November, 2025 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[COLLEGIUM JUSTICIA INDONESIA ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65815/r9r5q977
<![CDATA[Equality before the law constitutes a core principle of court justice, yet sentencing disparities continue to provoke public debate in Indonesia’s corruption cases. This paper examines how sentencing practices reflect and challenge the normative commitment to equality in criminal adjudication. Through doctrinal analysis of criminal law principles and comparative reading of selected corruption verdicts, the study explores variations in sentencing severity across cases with comparable legal and factual circumstances. The analysis suggests that judicial discretion, while legally permitted, often lacks sufficiently articulated justification, creating perceptions of unequal treatment. By focusing on sentencing as a site of justice evaluation, the paper highlights how court justice is shaped by consistency, proportionality, and transparency. It raises normative questions about the limits of judicial discretion and the role of sentencing guidelines in reinforcing public confidence in the criminal justice system.]]>
