Publication Search

Background: The rapid development of blockchain technology and smart contracts has fundamentally transformed contractual relationships by shifting the role of human interpretation and enforcement toward automated, code-based, and decentralized systems. This transformation generates complex legal implications, particularly regarding the evolution of contractual liability, which is increasingly distributed and no longer centered on a single legal subject. Objective: This study aims to analyze the evolution of contractual liability in smart agreements and examine how such transformation affects the fundamental principles of traditional contract law within modern legal systems. Methods: This research employs a normative and conceptual legal approach, supported by an analysis of blockchain regulations across multiple jurisdictions, case studies of smart contract implementation, and a comparative legal analysis between civil law and common law systems, complemented by a multidisciplinary literature review. Results: The findings indicate that contractual liability in smart agreements has evolved from a centralized fault-based liability model to an algorithmic, distributed, and code-dependent liability structure within blockchain ecosystems. This evolution creates new legal challenges concerning the attribution of liability, legal certainty, and the limitation of judicial intervention in automated contractual arrangements. Furthermore, the study identifies a tension between technological efficiency and substantive legal justice, highlighting the need for adaptive legal frameworks capable of accommodating decentralized technologies while ensuring the protection of legal rights and accountability of involved parties.

Penelitian ini dilatarbelakangi oleh munculnya persoalan yuridis dalam pelaksanaan mekanisme Agunan yang Diambil Alih (AYDA) oleh perbankan, terutama terkait validasi Pajak Penghasilan atas Pengalihan Hak atas Tanah dan/atau Bangunan (PPh TB). Kasus BPR RAY memperlihatkan kebuntuan administratif akibat penolakan validasi pajak oleh DJP, yang menimbulkan ketidakpastian hukum dalam penyelamatan kredit bermasalah. Rumusan masalah mencakup: (1) bentuk pertentangan norma antara POJK 33/2018 dan PMK 261/2016; (2) penyebab disharmonisasi norma; dan (3) akibat hukumnya terhadap pelaksanaan AYDA. Penelitian ini bertujuan mengidentifikasi bentuk, penyebab, dan akibat hukum dari disharmonisasi tersebut. Metode yang digunakan ialah yuridis normatif dengan spesifikasi deskriptif-analitis melalui studi pustaka dan wawancara. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bentuk pertentangan antara PMK 261/2016 yang mengedepankan pendekatan formal kepemilikan dan POJK 33/2018 yang menekankan substansi penguasaan aset. Disharmonisasi ini disebabkan oleh pengambilalihan AYDA secara sukarela, penafsiran subjek pajak penghasilan, serta ketiadaan regulasi penghubung antarregulator. Akibat hukum disharmonisasi ini terjadi di sektor perbankan, perpajakan dan pertanahan. Hasil penelitian kemudian dianalisis menggunakan teori sistem hukum, teori hukum responsif dan teori keadilan distributif. Dari hasil penelitian ini dapat disimpulkan disharmonisasi norma menimbulkan hambatan dalam praktik AYDA dan menimbulkan akibat hukum di berbagai sektor. Di akhir, peneliti memberikan saran akademik mendorong penelitian AYDA yang multi kasus dengan teori hukum yang lebih variative. Untuk saran praktis penelitian ini menegaskan pentingnya harmonisasi antar regulator sehingga pengaturan AYDA tidak saling bertentangan. Beban pajak sebaiknya disesuaikan dengan prinsip keadilan dan kemampuan membayar. BPR maupun masyarakat dapat menempuh judicial review ke Mahkamah Agung untuk menjamin kepastian hukum dan keseragaman tafsir regulasi

Indonesia constitutionally declares itself as a state based on the rule of law as mandated in Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution after the amendments. This principle requires that governance and law enforcement be conducted under constitutional supremacy, legal certainty, equality before the law, and an independent judiciary. However, various political interferences, regulatory inconsistencies, and discriminatory legal practices continue to undermine these ideals. This research examines: (1) the effectiveness of the hierarchy of legislation and judicial review mechanisms by the Constitutional Court (MK) and the Supreme Court (MA) in preventing regulatory conflicts and discriminatory law enforcement; and (2) the extent to which the rule of law principle post-amendment has been manifested in equal protection before the law and judicial independence. Using a normative legal research method with statute, conceptual, case, and historical approaches, this study finds that although constitutional reforms have strengthened checks and balances and judicial authority, the persistence of selective and politically influenced law enforcement indicates that equality before the law has not been consistently implemented. Strengthening institutional integrity, improving regulatory harmonization, and ensuring the judiciary’s independence remain crucial to realizing Indonesia’s constitutional aspirations as a democratic state governed by the rule of law.

The rapid advancement of digital technology has fundamentally transformed civil legal interactions, making electronic documents such as instant messages, online transactions, and digital contracts primary forms of evidence in many civil disputes. However, their admissibility in judicial proceedings remains fraught with challenges concerning formal and material validity. This study aims to identify juridical and technical obstacles in digital evidence and to formulate an ideal model for civil procedural law that ensures reliable electronic proof. A normative-juridical approach with qualitative analysis was employed, combining doctrinal research through legislative review, jurisprudence, and scholarly literature with case studies of court decisions involving electronic evidence, particularly in divorce disputes. The findings reveal that inconsistent judicial treatment stems from the absence of specific procedural rules in Indonesia’s civil procedure framework still rooted in colonial-era HIR and RBg alongside limited digital infrastructure and low technological literacy among judicial actors. In response, the study proposes an integrated legal construction model featuring explicit provisions in the upcoming Civil Procedure Code, adoption of the functional equivalence principle, institutionalization of digital forensic experts in litigation, and procedural safeguards for vulnerable parties. The research concludes that only through holistic reform of the evidentiary paradigm can Indonesia’s civil justice system guarantee fairness, legal certainty, and relevance in the digital era.

Constitutional Court (MK) “Decision Number 60/PUU-XXII/2024 marks an important shift in the practice of judicial review, whereby the Constitutional Court not only invalidates legal norms, but also establishes new substantive norms in cases involving open legal policy. This action reflects the tendency of positive legislature, which theoretically expands the scope of judicial authority beyond the limits of negative legislature. This study aims to analyse the implications of this ruling on the legislative function of Indonesia Parliament (DPR), particularly in the context of its constitutional responsibility to respond to and accommodate new norms established through court rulings. Using normative legal research methods and a conceptual approach, this study finds that the DPR's suboptimal institutional response to the substance of the ruling indicates serious challenges in harmonising the constitutional system that guarantees the effectiveness of norms, legal certainty, and the principle of checks and balances. This study contributes to proposing a model of inter-institutional coordination or parameters for the judicialisation of norms to ensure the balance of power, as well as criticising and clarifying the boundaries of the roles of each state institution in the context of corrective legislation based on judicial decisions.

This study examines the application of restorative justice in traffic accidents during the investigation stage. The main focus of this research is to analyze the regulations and implementation process. The goal is to comprehensively describe how restorative justice policies are regulated by law and how they are practiced in the field, particularly by investigators. The research method used is a juridical- normative method with a qualitative approach. Data were obtained through literature review and in-depth interviews with relevant parties. The results indicate that restorative justice can be applied in resolving traffic accident cases, especially those resulting in minor losses or minor injuries. This regulation is contained in various regulations, such as Police Regulations and Circular Letters that serve as guidelines for investigators. The implementation process involves mediation between the perpetrator, the victim, and other relevant parties to reach a peaceful agreement. This agreement often includes compensation, an apology, or other mutually agreed-upon forms of reparation. The application of restorative justice aims to restore conditions to normal, restore social relationships, and avoid lengthy formal judicial processes. However, its implementation still faces challenges, such as unequal public legal awareness and the criteria for cases that can be resolved through restorative justice.

This study examines the legal protection provided to holders of Building Use Rights (HGB) on land under Management Rights (HPL) as interpreted in Supreme Court Decision No. 2160 K/Pdt/2017. The research aims to understand how civil law is applied to ensure legal certainty for HGB holders on HPL land and to strengthen insight into civil law principles used in resolving land-rights disputes. In the juridical context, land refers to the earth’s surface, while land rights are defined as authority over a specific, limited portion of that surface. Legal certainty, based on written regulations implementing the Basic Agrarian Law No. 5 of 1960, provides clarity regarding the rights and obligations of parties who own or control land. The study was conducted at the Sragen Police Resort using documentation methods—reviewing legal texts, literature, and supporting materials—along with field data obtained through interviews with relevant officers and individuals familiar with the case. The findings show that the Judex Facti of the West Java High Court made an error by declaring that no new issues required examination without giving adequate legal reasoning. The court also failed to address the objections submitted by the appellant, violating Article 50 paragraph (1) of Law No. 48 of 2009 on Judicial Power. Consequently, the Supreme Court annulled the previous decision, clarifying the legal consequences and strengthening the interpretation of HGB status on HPL land.

The position of judges in the process of proving civil cases occupies a fundamental role in upholding justice and legal certainty within the Indonesian judicial system. This study aims to examine the judge’s position, duties, and authority in the evidentiary process of civil cases through a literature review focusing on doctrines and jurisprudence. Using a normative juridical method with a library research approach, this paper analyzes legal theories, statutory provisions, and judicial precedents that regulate evidentiary procedures in civil law. The findings show that a judge is not merely a passive law enforcer but an active truth-seeker who must interpret and assess evidence based on principles of fairness, propriety, and moral values. The judge’s discretion in evaluating evidence reflects the responsibility to harmonize formal legal norms with the pursuit of substantive justice. Jurisprudence demonstrates that judges play an essential role in shaping evidentiary standards and ensuring that court decisions reflect the ideals of justice and legal certainty. The study concludes that the authority and independence of judges are crucial in realizing a fair trial, as they ensure that decisions are based on verified facts, logical reasoning, and moral responsibility. Strengthening the professionalism and integrity of judges is necessary to guarantee that the evidentiary process in civil proceedings fulfills the principles of equality before the law and promotes justice in society. 

Constitutionalism plays a fundamental role in limiting state power and ensuring that government authority operates within ethical, legal, and democratic boundaries. Indonesia and Thailand offer two contrasting examples of constitutional development in Southeast Asia. Following the 1998 Reform era, Indonesia successfully strengthened mechanisms of checks and balances through the establishment of the Constitutional Court, decentralization reforms, and the empowerment of independent oversight bodies. In contrast, Thailand has experienced repeated cycles of military intervention, where post-coup constitutions have served not as tools to restrict state power, but rather as instruments legitimizing centralized authority and military dominance.This article synthesizes existing scholarly literature and identifies critical research gaps related to constitutionalism studies in both countries. First, there remains a scarcity of long-term empirical and quantitative studies assessing the effectiveness of constitutional limitations on executive, legislative, and judicial power. Second, current research has insufficiently examined informal political practices, including patronage networks, oligarchic influence, and military entrenchment within state institutions. Third, comparative constitutional studies covering the 2014–2025 period remain limited, particularly in assessing post-authoritarian and post-coup constitutional dynamics.The findings of this review highlight the need for deeper interdisciplinary research, integrating political science, legal studies, and institutional analysis to better understand the evolving nature of constitutionalism in Southeast Asia.

This study examines the complex issue of citizenship in interfaith marriages within Indonesia’s legal and human rights framework. The problem arises from the absence of explicit provisions in national law regarding the civil registration and citizenship consequences of marriages between individuals of different religions. This legal ambiguity often results in unequal recognition, difficulties in registering children’s citizenship, and broader implications for the right to identity. The research aims to analyze how Indonesian marriage law, administrative population law, and judicial interpretations interact with international and constitutional human rights principles. Using a normative juridical method combined with case study analysis and doctrinal review, this study identifies legal inconsistencies between national regulations and the principle of non-discrimination guaranteed under human rights law. The findings indicate that judicial practices, such as post-SEMA No. 2 of 2023 rulings, show a gradual shift toward balancing legal certainty with human rights protection, although disparities persist across jurisdictions. The study concludes that reform is required to clarify the status of interfaith marriages and to protect the citizenship rights of all parties involved, including children. It recommends that legislators harmonize marriage and citizenship laws with constitutional mandates and human rights instruments to ensure equality before the law, legal certainty, and respect for individual freedoms.

The Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (PKPU) is a rehabilitative mechanism, but it is susceptible to bad faith abuse. This case study examines Homologation Decision No. 62/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2021/PN Niaga Sby, where judges ratified a composition plan creating a "Previous Trade Creditors" category. This clause, targeting unregistered creditors, effectively resulted in a 95% debt write-off, injuring the Principle of Justice. This research aims to analyze the judges' legal considerations in ratifying this clause and examines their failure to apply material judicial obligations regarding the debtor's bad faith. This research utilizes a normative juridical method with a statute and case study approach. The analysis is qualitative, examining the decision and relevant legislation, supplemented by an interview with a practicing Commercial Court judge. The primary finding is that the judges' considerations were overly positivistic, focusing only on the formal voting quorum (Article 281, UU KPKPU). They failed to execute their imperative duty under Article 285(2)(c) to reject a plan achieved via "dishonest means". The 95% write-off is prima facie bad faith and is punitive, not rehabilitative. The judges misinterpreted the Publicity Principle; non-registration should only cause the loss of voting rights (procedural), not the loss of claim rights (substantive). This failure of material judicial review legitimized the abuse of the PKPU institution.  

This study examines the changes in the authority of the Professional Disciplinary Council (Majelis Disiplin Profesi, MDP) under Law Number 17 of 2023 concerning Health and their implications for legal certainty for medical and health professionals. Although these changes are intended to improve the professional disciplinary system, they have resulted in the centralization of authority under the Ministry of Health, including the appointment of members, institutional formation, and the process of judicial review of MDP decisions. Furthermore, MDP recommendations can now serve as a basis for criminal investigations against medical and health personnel, which contradicts the original function of the MDP as an institution for enforcing ethics and professional discipline based on due process of ethics. This research employs a normative juridical method with a descriptive-analytical and case study approach, supported by expert interviews in health law. Theoretical frameworks used include the Theory of Legal Certainty, the Theory of Human Rights, and the Theory of Legal Protection. Findings indicate that the centralization of authority under the Ministry of Health has created a power imbalance in professional oversight. This has negative implications for legal protection, increasing the risk of conflict of interest, abuse of authority, and weakening legal certainty for medical and health professionals. Therefore, it is necessary to revise Law No. 17 of 2023 and Government Regulation No. 28 of 2024 to restore the independence of the MDP and ensure a proportional redistribution of authority within the health professional oversight system.

The digital transformation of Indonesia’s judiciary through the e-Court system represents a Supreme Court initiative to realize the principles of speed, simplicity, and affordability as mandated by Article 2(4) of Law No. 48 of 2009 on Judicial Power. This study aims to analyze the effectiveness of these principles in the implementation of e-Court, particularly in civil cases at District Courts. The research employs a juridical-normative and juridical-empirical approach, collecting data through literature review, document analysis, and interviews with court officials, lawyers, and litigants. The findings indicate that e- Court significantly accelerates case administration, claim submission, and inter-party communication, reflecting a faster and more efficient adjudication process. Nevertheless, challenges remain, including technological infrastructure limitations, digital literacy disparities, and regional inconsistencies in implementation. Furthermore, although case fees have become more affordable, accessibility for people in remote areas continues to hinder procedural simplicity. The study concludes that e-Court has positively contributed to realizing the principles of speed, simplicity, and low cost, yet further policy reinforcement, equitable digital infrastructure, and human resource development are necessary to achieve an inclusive and just digital judiciary.

This research discusses the phenomenon of social organizations (ormas) in Indonesia from a legal perspective and the challenges of democracy. The freedom of association guarantyd by Article 28E paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution serves as the legal basis for the existence of social organizations, which are further regulated by Law Number 17 of 2013 and Law Number 16 of 2017. Regulatory changes, particularly the government's authority to dissolve mass organizations without judicial process, have sparked a debate between the need to maintain public order and the guaranty of the principle of due process of law. The research method used is normative juridical with a legislative and conceptual approach, supported by a literature study from primary and secondary legal materials. The study results show that although mass organizations have great potential in strengthening democracy, challenges such as identity politics, radicalism, lack of funding transparency, and state power abuse against mass organizations still pose major obstacles. Therefore, balanced legal regulations, transparent oversight, and enhanced democratic literacy are needed to ensure that the role of social organizations remains in line with the principles of the rule of law and Pancasila democracy.  

This study examines the role of the Constitutional Court of Indonesia (Mahkamah Konstitusi/MK) as a positive legislator through the lens of the living constitution approach, which conceptualizes the constitution as a dynamic and evolving document responding to social and political change. The main problem addressed is the extent to which the MK’s judicial activism in interpreting and even creating new legal norms aligns with constitutional principles, democratic legitimacy, and the balance of powers between the judiciary and the legislature. The objective of the research is to analyze how the MK’s progressive interpretations have transformed it from a negative legislator—which merely annuls unconstitutional laws—into a positive legislator that effectively fills legal gaps and constructs new constitutional meanings. Using a normative juridical method combined with case study analysis, this research explores key constitutional decisions, focusing on cases where the MK extended its interpretive authority beyond mere judicial review. The findings reveal that the MK, through the living constitution approach, justifies its role as a positive legislator by invoking principles of constitutional morality, justice, and responsiveness to societal evolution. However, this judicial creativity also generates tension with legislative supremacy and may risk overstepping the boundaries of judicial function. The synthesis of findings suggests that the MK’s transformation embodies the dynamic interplay between constitutional text and social context, reinforcing the adaptability of Indonesian constitutionalism. The study concludes that while the MK’s position as a positive legislator under the living constitution paradigm strengthens constitutional justice and protects citizens’ rights, it must remain anchored in checks and balances to prevent judicial overreach and preserve democratic legitimacy.

This research aims to analyze the conflict of authority between the Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) and the Supreme Court (Mahkamah Agung) within Indonesia’s constitutional system, focusing on institutional disputes that have emerged following the amendment of the 1945 Constitution. The main objective is to examine the legal foundations, juridical implications, and mechanisms for resolving jurisdictional conflicts between the two courts through a normative juridical approach and case-based analysis. The findings indicate that authority conflicts between the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court often arise from overlapping legal norms and ambiguities in the delineation of constitutional functions established by the 1945 Constitution and its implementing laws. In several cases, such as disputes over the judicial review of regulations below the level of statutes, divergent interpretations have occurred regarding the scope of constitutional versus administrative jurisdiction. This study reveals that legal harmonization through regulatory reform and inter-institutional coordination is essential to prevent future jurisdictional overlaps. The conclusion emphasizes the need to strengthen the principles of checks and balances and clarify the hierarchy of norms to ensure stability in Indonesia’s constitutional framework. The research recommends the establishment of a cross-institutional constitutional forum as a mediation mechanism among state institutions to uphold constitutional supremacy and legal certainty in Indonesia.

This study evaluates the effectiveness of the Constitutional Court’s authority in reviewing laws and regulations as a means of upholding constitutional supremacy in Indonesia. Employing both normative and empirical legal research methods, it examines the Constitutional Court’s rulings from 2019 to 2024 and assesses their broader implications for the national constitutional system. The findings reveal several structural weaknesses in the review mechanism, particularly related to the enforcement of decisions and the existence of dualism between the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court in conducting judicial reviews. These shortcomings have created inconsistencies and reduced the optimal impact of the Constitutional Court’s role. To address these issues, the research recommends comprehensive reforms, including the unification of judicial review authority, enhancement of the Constitutional Court’s executorial powers, and expansion of public access to constitutional review procedures. Such measures are expected to strengthen the Court’s role as the guardian of the constitution, improve legal certainty, and support the creation of a more coherent and harmonious legal system in Indonesia.

This research examines judicial discrepancies in criminal cases of fiduciary transfer, focusing on Decision No. 45/Pid.Sus/2023/PN.SMN. Discrepancy is understood as the inconsistency between trial facts, the prosecutor’s evidence, and the judge’s considerations, which may lead to injustice and reduce public trust in the judiciary. The purpose of this study is to analyze the forms of discrepancy found in the decision and to assess their legal implications for the protection of the defendant’s rights and legal certainty. The research method employed is empirical juridical research with a sociological juridical approach, using statutory analysis, case studies, interviews with law enforcers, and literature review. The findings indicate disharmony in the assessment of intent (mens rea), the interpretation of written consent, and the proof of losses suffered by fiduciary recipients. Such discrepancies weaken the quality of the judgment, create legal uncertainty, and potentially violate the principle of fair trial. This study concludes that harmonization between trial facts, prosecutorial evidence, and judicial reasoning is necessary to maintain the integrity of the criminal justice system, improve the quality of judicial decisions, and strengthen legal protection for the parties involved.

This paper aims to explore the legal basis and ethical reasoning for the revocation of parental rights due to domestic violence by placing the child's best interests as a compass and mapping the gap between norms and judicial practices. The method used is normative-doctrinal legal research based on a literature review of the Domestic Violence Law, the Marriage Law, the Child Protection Law, selected jurisprudence, and scientific literature, analyzed qualitatively through systematic interpretation, argument construction, and linking to the facts of the impact of domestic violence on children. The results show that positive law provides a firm basis for sanctions and protections including restrictions on interaction and revocation of custody rights, but implementation is often hampered by vague evidence of psychological violence, the victim's economic dependence, and weak execution of alimony; revocation effectively breaks the cycle when accompanied by a protection order, a post-decision parenting plan, and ongoing psychosocial support. Policy implications include guidelines for proving coercive control, expanding access to timely protection orders, integrating trauma-informed services in religious courts, and a mechanism for executing alimony that does not burden victims, with schools, community health centers, and communities as early detection nodes. Ultimately, legal work and social networks converge in one simple goal: that home again means a safe place for children to return.

Pancasila, as Indonesia’s foundational ideology, plays a central role in guiding the nation’s democratic governance and shaping its human rights framework. Despite its normative strength and universal values, the implementation of Pancasila in protecting human rights remains challenged by selective interpretations, legal inconsistencies, and socio-political dynamics that often limit its transformative potential. This study employs a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, systematically analyzing peer-reviewed Scopus-indexed publications from 2014–2025. The methodology integrates qualitative thematic synthesis and bibliometric mapping using VOSviewer, combining network, overlay, and density visualizations to capture both substantive content and the intellectual structure of the literature. The review identifies four major thematic dimensions: (1) humanity and social justice as core ethical values of Pancasila; (2) legal framework and reforms that seek to harmonize national laws with constitutional and international human rights principles; (3) challenges and critiques highlighting issues such as weak law enforcement, political intervention, and ideological contestation; and (4) educational and societal impacts, particularly the role of civic education and community-based initiatives in fostering rights awareness. Findings highlight that while Pancasila provides a robust ethical and legal foundation for human rights protection, its practical impact remains constrained by structural weaknesses, limited civic engagement, and inconsistent judicial practices. Bibliometric mapping reveals a growing scholarly interest in the areas of legal modernization, democratic governance, and the integration of human rights education within both formal and informal learning systems. This suggests that contemporary discourse is increasingly oriented toward reform and institutional strengthening. The study concludes that a synergistic application of Pancasila principles, comprehensive legal reform, and active civic participation is crucial for advancing human rights in Indonesia. Strengthening judicial independence, promoting inclusive legal frameworks, and enhancing civic education are key strategies to align Indonesia’s human rights practices with both its national values and international standards. Ultimately, this review contributes to scholarly discourse and policy development by providing a comprehensive synthesis of the intersection between ideology, democracy, and human rights in contemporary Indonesia.