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[The Transformation of the Death Penalty into Life Imprisonment at the Cassation Level: An Analysis of the Supreme Court's Ratio Decidendi in Decision No. 813 K/Pid/2023 ]]>
<![CDATA[Danang Putranto]]>
<![CDATA[ Indonesian Court and Justice Review Vol. 3 No. 1 (2026): February, 2026 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[COLLEGIUM JUSTICIA INDONESIA ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65815/m7syga60
<![CDATA[The authority of the Supreme Court to modify criminal sanctions at the cassation level raises important questions concerning judicial discretion, proportionality, and the boundaries of cassation review in Indonesian criminal justice. This study examines the Supreme Court's ratio decidendi in Decision No. 813 K/Pid/2023, particularly its decision to modify the punishment imposed on Ferdy Sambo in a premeditated murder case. The research aims to identify the legal considerations underlying the transformation of the death penalty into life imprisonment and to assess whether such modification is consistent with the principles governing cassation proceedings and sentencing proportionality. Employing a normative juridical method, this study analyzes the decision through a statutory, conceptual, and case-based approach. Primary legal materials consist of the relevant court decisions and Indonesian criminal legislation, complemented by scholarly literature concerning judicial discretion, sentencing, and cassation review. The analysis demonstrates that the Supreme Court's intervention cannot be understood merely as a correction of the lower court's sentence, but rather as an exercise of judicial authority in reassessing the proportionality of punishment within the framework of cassation. The decision illustrates the tension between judicial finality and the Supreme Court's corrective function. This study argues that greater transparency in articulating sentencing considerations is necessary to strengthen consistency, predictability, and public legitimacy in high-profile criminal adjudication. The findings contribute to the broader debate on judicial discretion and proportional sentencing in Indonesia.]]>
<![CDATA[Accumulation of Criminal Penalties for Different Offences Committed against a Child: A Study of Supreme Court Decision No. 10825 K/Pid.Sus/2025 ]]>
<![CDATA[Antonio Tinambunan]]>
<![CDATA[ Indonesian Court and Justice Review Vol. 3 No. 1 (2026): February, 2026 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[COLLEGIUM JUSTICIA INDONESIA ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65815/mbwbcx63
<![CDATA[The imposition of multiple criminal sanctions for different offences arising from a single course of conduct presents a complex issue in Indonesian criminal law, particularly when the victim is a child. The problem becomes more significant where offences involving sexual abuse, violence, or other forms of harm are charged cumulatively, potentially resulting in substantial differences in sentencing outcomes. This study examines Supreme Court Decision No. 10825 K/Pid.Sus/2025 to analyse the legal basis for the accumulation of criminal penalties for different offences committed against a child. The research seeks to determine how the Supreme Court distinguishes between multiple offences, establishes their relationship within the same factual circumstances, and applies the relevant rules on concurrence of offences and sentencing. This study employs a normative juridical method using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. The primary materials include the Supreme Court decision, relevant provisions of Indonesian criminal legislation, and regulations concerning child protection and sexual offences. The analysis focuses on the judicial reasoning used to determine whether separate criminal liabilities may be imposed cumulatively and whether such an approach adequately reflects the seriousness of harm suffered by child victims. The study argues that cumulative sentencing should be based on clearly articulated criteria concerning the plurality of offences, protected legal interests, and the distinct nature of the resulting harm. The case demonstrates the need for greater doctrinal consistency in applying cumulative punishment while maintaining proportionality and prioritising the protection of children.]]>
<![CDATA[Corruption in Judicial Case Administration within the Supreme Court: An Analysis of the Ratio Decidendi in Decision No. 7143 K/Pid.Sus/2024 ]]>
<![CDATA[Annisa Putri]]>
<![CDATA[ Indonesian Court and Justice Review Vol. 3 No. 1 (2026): February, 2026 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[COLLEGIUM JUSTICIA INDONESIA ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65815/w6mnbv94
<![CDATA[Corruption involving judicial case administration poses a fundamental threat to judicial independence, institutional integrity, and public confidence in the rule of law. When corrupt conduct occurs within the judicial institution itself, criminal adjudication must address not only the individual responsibility of the accused but also the broader institutional implications of such misconduct. This study analyses Supreme Court Decision No. 7143 K/Pid.Sus/2024 concerning corruption associated with the handling of cases within the Supreme Court. The research aims to identify the principal legal considerations employed by the Supreme Court in establishing criminal liability and to examine how the decision constructs the relationship between abuse of institutional authority, unlawful benefit, and corruption. The study uses a normative juridical methodology based on statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. Primary legal materials include the relevant judicial decision and Indonesian anti-corruption legislation, while secondary materials comprise academic literature concerning judicial ethics, corruption, and institutional accountability. The analysis focuses on the interpretation of the elements of corruption, the evidentiary assessment of interactions surrounding case administration, and the judicial construction of abuse of authority. This study argues that corruption within judicial administration requires a particularly rigorous standard of reasoning because the legitimacy of the adjudicative system depends upon impartiality and procedural integrity. The case demonstrates that criminal accountability and judicial ethics are closely interconnected. The research recommends strengthening institutional safeguards, transparency mechanisms, and judicial accountability to prevent transactional practices from undermining the integrity of judicial decision-making.]]>
<![CDATA[Drawing the Boundary between Extortion in Office and Gratification: An Analysis of Judicial Reasoning in the Syahrul Yasin Limpo Case ]]>
<![CDATA[Ali Masyhar]]>;
<![CDATA[Ridwan Arifin]]>
<![CDATA[ Indonesian Court and Justice Review Vol. 3 No. 1 (2026): February, 2026 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[COLLEGIUM JUSTICIA INDONESIA ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65815/dbejde20
<![CDATA[The distinction between extortion in office and gratification remains a significant doctrinal issue in Indonesian anti-corruption law because both offences may involve public officials receiving economic benefits in connection with their official positions. However, the legal elements, modes of conduct, and evidentiary requirements applicable to each offence are not identical. This study examines the judicial reasoning in the Syahrul Yasin Limpo case to identify the legal boundary between extortion in office and gratification. The research aims to determine how the court interprets the relationship between official authority, coercion or pressure, receipt of benefits, and the intention underlying the defendant's conduct. A normative juridical method is employed using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. The study analyses relevant provisions of Indonesian anti-corruption legislation, the judicial decision, and scholarly interpretations concerning bribery, gratification, abuse of authority, and extortion. The findings indicate that the distinction between these offences should not be based solely on the existence of payments or benefits received by a public official. Instead, judicial assessment should examine the mechanism through which the benefit was obtained, the position and authority of the official, the existence of coercive conduct, and the causal relationship between official duties and the benefit. The study argues that a clear doctrinal distinction is essential to prevent overlapping criminal classifications and arbitrary enforcement. This analysis contributes to the development of a more coherent framework for distinguishing corruption offences involving public officials and strengthens legal certainty in Indonesian anti-corruption adjudication.]]>
<![CDATA[Judicial Considerations in Determining Criminal Liability for Corruption in the Tin Trading Sector: A Study of Supreme Court Decision No. 5009 K/Pid.Sus/2025 ]]>
<![CDATA[Andrea Sitorus]]>
<![CDATA[ Indonesian Court and Justice Review Vol. 3 No. 1 (2026): February, 2026 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[COLLEGIUM JUSTICIA INDONESIA ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65815/nb932n62
<![CDATA[Corruption in natural-resource governance presents distinctive challenges because criminal liability may arise from complex commercial arrangements involving public resources, state revenues, and private actors. The tin trading case examined in Supreme Court Decision No. 5009 K/Pid.Sus/2025 provides an important context for analysing how judicial reasoning determines individual criminal responsibility in large-scale economic crimes. This study aims to examine the ratio decidendi employed by the Supreme Court in assessing the defendant's criminal liability and the relationship between commercial conduct, state financial losses, and the elements of corruption. A normative juridical method is employed through statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. The analysis focuses on the construction of unlawful conduct, causation between the defendant's conduct and state losses, the evidentiary basis for attribution of responsibility, and the judicial assessment of punishment. The study argues that corruption cases involving natural resources require courts to distinguish carefully between legitimate business activities and conduct that constitutes criminal participation in the misuse of public resources. The decision is particularly relevant because the Supreme Court rejected the cassation applications, thereby maintaining the legal consequences of the lower courts' adjudication. The research demonstrates that judicial reasoning in resource-related corruption cases must integrate criminal-law principles with the regulatory structure governing natural-resource commerce. The study contributes to discussions on corporate-related corruption, state-loss doctrine, and judicial accountability in the governance of strategic natural resources.]]>
<![CDATA[The Supreme Court's Authority to Adjudicate a Case on Its Own in Embezzlement and Money Laundering Proceedings: A Study of Decision No. 3950 K/Pid.Sus/2024 ]]>
<![CDATA[Rizki Sultoni]]>
<![CDATA[ Indonesian Court and Justice Review Vol. 3 No. 2 (2026): May, 2026 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[COLLEGIUM JUSTICIA INDONESIA ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65815/p72zkv75
<![CDATA[The authority of the Supreme Court to adjudicate a criminal case on its own following the annulment of a lower court judgment raises important questions concerning the scope of cassation review and the principle of judicial hierarchy. This issue is particularly significant in cases involving multiple offences, such as embezzlement and money laundering, where the factual and legal relationship between predicate and subsequent offences requires comprehensive judicial assessment. This study examines Supreme Court Decision No. 3950 K/Pid.Sus/2024, in which the Supreme Court granted the public prosecutor's cassation and annulled the judgment of the Central Jakarta District Court before adjudicating the case itself. The research aims to analyse the legal basis, limits, and implications of the Supreme Court's authority to render its own judgment at the cassation stage. A normative juridical method is employed using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. The analysis focuses on the procedural framework governing cassation, the Supreme Court's corrective jurisdiction, and the relationship between judicial fact-finding and legal review. The study argues that adjudicating the case itself may serve judicial efficiency and corrective justice, but such authority requires strict justification to prevent cassation from becoming a de facto retrial. The decision demonstrates the importance of distinguishing errors of law from factual reassessment while ensuring that defendants' procedural rights remain protected. The study contributes to the debate concerning the appropriate boundaries of Supreme Court intervention in Indonesian criminal proceedings.]]>
<![CDATA[Scientific Evidence and the Limits of Factual Reassessment in Judicial Review: A Study of Supreme Court Decision No. 78 PK/PID/2025 ]]>
<![CDATA[Muhammad Rokhi Maghfur]]>
<![CDATA[ Indonesian Court and Justice Review Vol. 3 No. 2 (2026): May, 2026 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[COLLEGIUM JUSTICIA INDONESIA ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65815/mbc8f454
<![CDATA[Judicial review in criminal proceedings presents a difficult balance between correcting miscarriages of justice and preserving the finality of judgments. This tension becomes particularly complex when a petition for judicial review relies on scientific evidence or challenges the interpretation of expert testimony that has previously been considered by the courts. This study examines Supreme Court Decision No. 78 PK/PID/2025 concerning Jessica Kumala Wongso to analyse the extent to which scientific evidence may justify factual reassessment at the judicial review stage. The decision was rendered on 14 August 2025 in a murder case and is recorded in the Supreme Court's official case directory. The study aims to determine the doctrinal limits of judicial review when the applicant seeks to challenge evidentiary conclusions established in previous proceedings. Employing a normative juridical method, the research uses statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. Particular attention is given to the legal framework of judicial review, the evidentiary status of scientific and expert evidence, and the distinction between newly discovered evidence and a disagreement with previous factual assessment. The study argues that scientific evidence should not automatically transform judicial review into a fourth level of factual adjudication. Instead, its relevance must be assessed according to its novelty, reliability, probative value, and capacity to affect the legal conclusion. The case highlights the need for clear judicial standards concerning scientific evidence while maintaining the exceptional character of judicial review.]]>
<![CDATA[The Probative Value of Circumstantial Evidence in Premeditated Murder: An Analysis of Supreme Court Decision No. 498 K/PID/2017 ]]>
<![CDATA[Surya Adhi]]>
<![CDATA[ Indonesian Court and Justice Review Vol. 3 No. 2 (2026): May, 2026 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[COLLEGIUM JUSTICIA INDONESIA ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65815/prgw5c72
<![CDATA[The use of circumstantial evidence in criminal proceedings raises fundamental questions concerning the standard of proof, judicial inference, and the protection of defendants against conviction based on speculation. These concerns are particularly significant in premeditated murder cases, where direct evidence of the defendant's intention and participation may be unavailable. This study examines Supreme Court Decision No. 498 K/PID/2017 concerning Jessica Kumala Wongso to analyse the legal strength of circumstantial evidence in establishing criminal responsibility for premeditated murder. The official Supreme Court case directory records the decision as a murder case in which the defendant was convicted under Article 340 of the Indonesian Criminal Code. This research aims to identify the types of indirect evidence relied upon by the courts and to assess how individual evidentiary circumstances are combined to establish a coherent chain of proof. A normative juridical method is applied through statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. The study focuses on evidentiary principles, judicial inference, and the relationship between individual circumstantial facts and the ultimate conclusion concerning guilt. The analysis argues that circumstantial evidence may possess substantial probative value when multiple independent circumstances mutually reinforce one another and exclude reasonable alternative explanations. Nevertheless, judicial reasoning must clearly demonstrate the logical connection between each evidentiary fact and the elements of the offence. The study concludes that transparent reasoning is essential to ensure that circumstantial evidence operates as a legally structured form of proof rather than subjective judicial inference.]]>
<![CDATA[Criminal Sentencing and the Protection of Child Victims in Sexual Violence Cases: An Analysis of Bandung District Court Decision No. 989/Pid.Sus/2021/PN Bdg ]]>
<![CDATA[Sri Endah Dwi Saputri]]>
<![CDATA[ Indonesian Court and Justice Review Vol. 3 No. 2 (2026): May, 2026 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[COLLEGIUM JUSTICIA INDONESIA ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65815/xe2d3y69
<![CDATA[Sexual violence against children requires a criminal justice response that simultaneously addresses offender accountability, victim protection, and the restoration of victims' rights. The Herry Wirawan case is particularly significant because the victims were children and the court imposed a severe criminal sanction together with restitution-related measures. This study examines Bandung District Court Decision No. 989/Pid.Sus/2021/PN Bdg to analyse the relationship between criminal sentencing and the protection of child victims in sexual violence proceedings. The official case record shows that the defendant was convicted of repeatedly committing sexual violence against multiple children and was sentenced to life imprisonment, with restitution imposed in relation to the victims. The study aims to assess whether the court's sentencing approach reflects the principles of child protection, proportionality, victim-centred justice, and rehabilitation. A normative juridical method is employed using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. The research analyses child-protection legislation, sexual-violence legislation, sentencing principles, and the judicial reasoning contained in the decision. The study argues that effective protection of child victims cannot be measured solely through the severity of imprisonment. Restitution, procedural protection, psychological recovery, and recognition of victims' long-term harm are equally important dimensions of justice. The case demonstrates the need to integrate punitive and restorative elements within the judicial response to sexual violence against children. The study contributes to the development of a victim-centred framework for sentencing in Indonesian child sexual-abuse cases.]]>
<![CDATA[The Boundary between Business Risk and Criminal Liability in Failed Cooperative Payment Schemes: A Study of Supreme Court Decision No. 2113 K/Pid.Sus/2023 ]]>
<![CDATA[Muhammad Sabar Sugiyanto]]>;
<![CDATA[Zulfikar Muhammad Idris]]>
<![CDATA[ Indonesian Court and Justice Review Vol. 3 No. 2 (2026): May, 2026 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[COLLEGIUM JUSTICIA INDONESIA ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65815/kw578p47
<![CDATA[The criminalisation of failed business activities raises a persistent challenge in economic criminal law: distinguishing legitimate commercial risk from conduct that satisfies the elements of a criminal offence. This problem is particularly relevant in cooperative and financial activities where losses may result from liquidity problems, mismanagement, regulatory violations, or fraudulent conduct. This study examines Supreme Court Decision No. 2113 K/Pid.Sus/2023 concerning Henry Surya to analyse the boundary between business risk and criminal liability in a failed cooperative payment scheme. The Supreme Court's official directory classifies the case under special criminal offences concerning banking and records that the decision was rendered on 16 May 2023. The study aims to identify the criteria used by the court to distinguish civil or commercial failure from criminal conduct and to assess the role of intent, regulatory obligations, and financial representations in establishing criminal responsibility. A normative juridical approach is adopted through statutory, conceptual, and case analysis. The research examines banking and cooperative regulations, criminal-law principles, and the judicial reasoning underlying the decision. The study argues that financial losses alone should not automatically generate criminal liability. Criminalisation requires proof of conduct satisfying specific statutory elements, including unlawful acts and the requisite mental element where applicable. The case illustrates the importance of maintaining a principled boundary between commercial risk and criminal fraud while ensuring accountability for conduct that deliberately undermines financial trust.]]>
