Publication Search

This study aims to gain an in-depth understanding of the legal reasoning used by judges in the Administrative Court (PTUN) in annulling State Administrative Decisions (KTUN), as well as to examine the legal implications for the parties involved and the overall system of government administration. This research employs a normative juridical method with three approaches: statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. The analysis was conducted qualitatively by studying reference books and reviewing court decisions. The study shows that the annulment of KTUN by PTUN judges is based on three important factors, namely lack of authority (ultra vires), procedural defects, and substantive defects in the decision. In addition, violations of the General Principles of Good Governance (AUPB), such as the principles of legal certainty, prudence, and proportionality, also constitute important considerations for judges. In the judicial process, judges not only consider the formal aspects of the law, but also take into account substantive justice in order to protect citizens’ rights from improper governmental actions. The implications of the annulment of KTUN include the restoration of the plaintiff’s rights through the process of restitutio in integrum, the obligation of administrative officials to revoke or correct the issued decision, as well as the potential impact on third parties involved in the decision. In general, the annulment of KTUN serves as a legal control mechanism over government administration while also encouraging the realization of good and transparent governance within a state governed by the rule of law.

Marriage is one of the fundamental institutions in Indonesian law, regulated through Law Number 1 of 1974 concerning Marriage as subsequently amended by Law Number 16 of 2019. The practice of polygamy in Indonesia is not absolutely prohibited, yet it is subject to strict requirements, including obtaining prior permission from the Religious Court and consent from the existing wife or wives. The absence of such permission constitutes a serious violation of marital law. This study examines the juridical review of polygamy without permission under Indonesian marriage law, focusing on the high-profile case of Ahmad Dhani and Maia Estianty. Using a normative legal research method with a statutory and case study approach, this paper analyzes the legal basis of polygamy regulation, the legal consequences of unauthorized polygamy, and the legal remedies available to aggrieved parties. The findings indicate that Ahmad Dhani's marriage to Mulan Jameela without obtaining permission from the Religious Court and without the consent of his first wife, Maia Estianty, constituted an unlawful act under Indonesian marriage law. Such unauthorized polygamy renders the second marriage legally defective and potentially voidable. Furthermore, the aggrieved wife has the legal right to file for divorce and claim compensation under applicable civil law provisions. This study also reveals systemic weaknesses in the enforcement of polygamy regulations in Indonesia, particularly the lack of effective sanctions against violators. Recommendations are directed at legislative reform to strengthen existing provisions and enhance judicial oversight of polygamous marriages in Indonesia.

The president's prerogative is a form of power inherent in the president's position as head of state. One form of this prerogative is the granting of abolition, which is the abolition of legal proceedings against a person or group of people who are or will undergo judicial proceedings. However, in its implementation, the president's authority to grant abolition is not absolute, but is limited by the applicable legal provisions and constitutional mechanisms. This study aims to analyze the limits of the president's power in exercising the prerogative in the form of abolition and review the juridical aspects that govern the procedure and its considerations. The research method used is normative juridical research with a statutory approach and a conceptual approach. Data sources are obtained from relevant laws and regulations, legal literature, and scientific works. The results of the study show that the president's authority in granting abolition is regulated in Article 14 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, which requires the president to pay attention to the considerations of the House of Representatives (DPR). Thus, this authority is not an absolute prerogative, but is limited by the principle of checks and balances in the Indonesian constitutional system. The conclusion of this study emphasizes that the restriction is a form of constitutional supervision over the use of presidential power to remain in line with the principles of the rule of law and constitutional democracy

Corruption cases in Indonesia often involve the recovery of state assets, including properties encumbered by mortgages (hak tanggungan). This research conducts a normative legal analysis on how current law treats such pledged assets when they become objects of state confiscation in corruption crimes. We examine Indonesian legislation (especially the Tipikor Act, TPPU Act, and Mortgage Act), judicial practice, and principles of justice and legal certainty. The Bank Perumda BPR Purworejo case is used as an illustrative case study: here fictitious loans and misused collateral led to state losses of hundreds of millions of rupiah, and investigators seized assets (including four mortgaged properties) as evidence. The analysis finds that existing rules inadequately protect good-faith creditors: courts have noted that a corruption verdict does not automatically erase a prior mortgage lien, and that a certified mortgage confers a preferential right equal to a judgment. In practice, however, law enforcement often seizes all assets of the convict without first verifying third-party rights, creating legal uncertainty and perceived injustice. We argue that fair outcomes require stricter safeguards for creditors (e.g. mandatory review of collateral status before seizure) and consideration of equitable principles. In conclusion, we recommend legal reforms or guidelines to balance the state’s recovery goals with protection of bona fide mortgagees, so as to uphold substantive justice while maintaining legal certainty.

This study examines the regulation of abuse of circumstances in sales agreements through a comparative study between Indonesian and Dutch civil law. Abuse of circumstances is a legal doctrine that protects the weaker party in contracts where there is an imbalance of power and pressure, resulting in a lack of free will from one party. The research aims to understand the concept and analyze the legal consequences in both legal systems. This normative study employs statutory, conceptual, and analytical approaches through literature review and case law analysis. Findings reveal that in Indonesia, abuse of circumstances is not explicitly regulated in the Civil Code and relies on case law and judicial interpretation, whereas in the Netherlands, it is clearly codified in Article 3:44 of the Nieuw Burgerlijk Wetboek (NBW) providing greater legal certainty. The legal consequence in both countries is the annulment of contracts formed under such circumstances and entitlement to compensation for the harmed party. The primary difference lies in codification and consistency of application. This study recommends that Indonesia adopt explicit regulation similar to the Dutch model to enhance legal protection and fairness in sales transactions.

This study is grounded in the observation that the implementation of an efficient, simple, and low-cost judicial process in civil cases remains ineffective, particularly in relation to mediation as a dispute resolution mechanism. Although mediation has been incorporated into judicial proceedings with the aim of expediting case resolution, simplifying procedural stages, and reducing litigation costs for the parties, these objectives have not been fully realized in practice. This research seeks to examine the extent to which mediation in civil litigation effectively contributes to the realization of an efficient, straightforward, and affordable justice system. In addition, it aims to identify the factors that influence both the success and failure of the mediation process. The study employs a normative legal research method, utilizing statutory and conceptual approaches. The research is conducted through a literature review of primary and secondary legal materials. The findings indicate that the implementation of mediation in civil courts has not yet reached an optimal level. This is reflected in the relatively low success rate of dispute resolution through mediation, as well as the tendency for mediation to be treated merely as a procedural formality. Several contributing factors include the lack of good faith from the parties, limited time allocated for mediation, and the suboptimal role of mediators.

Prodeo legal aid is one of the ways in which the state fulfils its responsibility to guarantee access to justice for economically disadvantaged members of the public. However, its implementation still faces challenges, particularly budgetary constraints, meaning that not all applications for prodeo legal aid can be processed. This issue arises in Industrial Relations Court (PHI) cases at the Banjarmasin District Court. This study aims to examine the implementation of prodeo services in PHI cases and to analyse these budgetary constraints from a constitutional law perspective. The methodology employed is a normative legal approach with an empirical focus, utilising a review of legislation, interviews, observations, and a literature review. The research findings indicate that prodeo is a service for litigation at no cost, funded by the state through the State Budget Allocation (DIPA). In 2025, a budget of Rp. 33,728,000 was only sufficient to handle 13 cases, meaning the service depends on the availability of funds. This situation reflects a gap between the constitutional guarantee of access to justice and practice on the ground. Therefore, improvements are needed in budget planning, allocation, and management, as well as the strengthening of the role of Legal Aid Posts and Legal Aid Institutions to enhance access to justice for the underprivileged.

This study aims to analyze the regulation and implementation of the authority to test laws and regulations (judicial review) in the Indonesian state system based on the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. This study applies a normative juridical method using three main approaches, namely the statute approach, the conceptual approach, and the historical approach. The legal data collected includes primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials, which are then reviewed through qualitative analysis. The results of the study show that normatively the division of judicial review authority between the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court has been expressly regulated in Article 24A paragraph (1) and Article 24C paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. The Supreme Court is given the authority to test regulations under the law against the law, and the Constitutional Court is given the authority to test laws against the 1945 Constitution. This division of authority is a manifestation of the principle of separation of powers and the mechanism of checks and balances after the third amendment to the 1945 Constitution. However, in practice, this two-roof judicial review system tends to give rise to conceptual and practical problems, such as overlapping authority and differences in decisions between the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court which have the potential to create legal uncertainty and reduce public trust in the judicial institution. Therefore, it is necessary to reorganize the authority of judicial review by strengthening coordination between institutions or unifying the authority of judicial review which is centered on one institution only in order to guarantee legal certainty, harmonization of norms, and supremacy of the constitution in the Indonesian state system.  

The doctrine of open legal policy is a jurisprudential construction of the Constitutional Court that provides space for lawmakers to formulate norms as long as they do not contradict the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. Nevertheless, the application of this doctrine in the practice of law testing has raised various constitutional problems, particularly concerning the limits of authority between legislators and the Constitutional Court, as well as the protection of citizens' constitutional rights. This research aims to analyze the concept and construction of open legal policy within the Indonesian constitutional system and to formulate the constitutional limits of its application in Constitutional Court decisions. This research is a normative legal study with an approach based on legislation, a conceptual approach, and a case approach. The legal materials used include the 1945 Constitution, relevant legislation, and pertinent Constitutional Court decisions. The research results indicate that open legal policy cannot be interpreted as absolute freedom for lawmakers, but must be limited by the principle of constitutional supremacy, protection of constitutional rights, and the principle of proportionality as reflected in Article 28J paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. The ambiguity of the parameters for applying this doctrine has the potential to cause inconsistencies in rulings and disrupt legal certainty. Therefore, a more precise and consistent formulation of constitutional limits is necessary to maintain the balance between representative democracy and constitutional oversight.

This study aims to analyze the position of statutory regulations as the main limiting framework for administrative discretion in Indonesian administrative law, particularly after the enactment of Law Number 11 of 2020 on Job Creation. The main issue examined is the normative shift caused by the removal of the requirement that discretion must not contradict statutory regulations, which potentially weakens legal certainty and judicial control. This research uses a normative juridical method with a regulatory and conceptualization approach, and is supported by the theory of discretionary justice, balance of legal objectives, and good governance. The findings indicate that the elimination of formal legality requirements transforms discretion from a legally constrained authority into a broader administrative freedom, increasing the risk of abuse of power and weakening the objective standards of judicial review in administrative courts. The study concludes that such a shift undermines the core principles of the rule of law and necessitates constitutional review to restore legal certainty, accountability, and effective judicial oversight.

Divorce gives rise to various legal consequences relating to the status of the parties, marital property, and the rights and obligations toward children, thereby requiring a legal mechanism that ensures legal certainty, justice, and legal protection. In practice, the parties often express their intention to divorce in the form of a Pre-Divorce Agreement Deed drawn up before a notary. This study aims to analyze the legal standing and evidentiary strength of a Pre-Divorce Agreement Deed as evidence in divorce cases decided by default judgment (verstek). The research employs a normative juridical method with a statutory approach and a case approach, focusing on the Decision of the Ngawi Religious Court Number 425/Pdt.G/2023, through a literature review of primary and secondary legal materials. The findings indicate that a Pre-Divorce Agreement Deed executed in the form of a notarial deed constitutes an authentic deed with perfect evidentiary value as written evidence in divorce proceedings. Although it cannot directly result in the dissolution of marriage, the deed is relevant to prove the existence of an agreement between the parties and the condition of a marital relationship that has irretrievably broken down. In cases decided by default judgment, the deed becomes an important basis for judicial consideration in granting the divorce petition. The implications of this study emphasize that a Pre-Divorce Agreement Deed may be lawfully and proportionately used as evidence to support the proof of grounds for divorce and to realize legal certainty in judicial proceedings.

Digital transformation in judicial institutions is aimed at improving transparency, efficiency, and legal certainty for the public. One of the main instruments in the digitization of the judiciary in Indonesia is the Case Tracking Information System (Sistem Informasi Penelusuran Perkara/SIPP), which functions as a means of case administration as well as a medium for public information disclosure. Although SIPP is considered to be running well from an administrative perspective, its effectiveness from the point of view of service users, particularly in providing information on court schedules, still shows limitations in its practical use. This study aims to analyze the effectiveness of SIPP in providing information and certainty regarding court schedules for service users at the Surabaya Class IA Special District Court. This study uses a qualitative approach with a descriptive research type. Data was obtained through in-depth interviews with service users and court officials, observation, and review of documents and system data. The analysis was conducted using the Socio-digital effectiveness framework, which focuses on three dimensions, namely user experience, citizen engagement, and public value, to examine the relationship between digital systems, user experience, and the social meaning of public judicial services. The analysis shows that the SIPP has been quite effective in providing access to court schedule information at the administrative level. This effectiveness is reflected in the openness of information access, which can be used by the public without special authentication. However, at the level of practical use, there are still limitations in terms of timeliness and consistency of information updates when there are delays or changes to the court schedule. This affects the user experience in planning attendance and shapes perceptions of the reliability of the digital information provided by the court.

This study discusses the position of persons with disabilities, especially those with mental and intellectual disabilities, in carrying out legal actions following the judicial review of Article 433 of the Civil Code through the Constitutional Court Decision Number 93/PUU-XX/2022. Prior to this amendment, Article 433 of the Civil Code used discriminatory terms and automatically placed persons with disabilities under guardianship, thereby eliminating their legal capacity as independent legal subjects. This Constitutional Court decision changed the phrase "must be guarded" to "can be guarded" and emphasized that the placement of guardianship can only be made based on a competent medical diagnosis. The research method used is normative juridical through a statutory approach and court decisions. The results of the study show that the change in norms restores the constitutional rights of persons with disabilities, including the right to autonomy, equality before the law, and protection from discrimination. In addition, this change directly affects the requirements for capacity in making agreements according to Article 1320 of the Civil Code, so that persons with mental disabilities who have the capacity are still considered capable of acting. Therefore, this decision is an important step in realizing a legal system that is more inclusive, just and respects the dignity of people with disabilities.

Phishing constitutes a form of cybercrime that continues to proliferate alongside the rapid advancement of information technology, causing significant impacts on data security and financial losses. This study aims to analyse the forms of criminal liability applicable to phishing perpetrators under Indonesian criminal law and to identify the challenges and solutions in its enforcement. The research employs a normative juridical approach utilising literature review methodology. The findings demonstrate that criminal liability for phishing perpetrators can be established through provisions in the Electronic Information and Transactions Law (ITE Law) as amended by Law Number 1 of 2024, the Indonesian Penal Code (KUHP), and related regulations. However, law enforcement faces numerous obstacles, including inadequate specific legal regulations, limited digital forensic technology, low public legal literacy, and cross-border jurisdictional barriers. In judicial proceedings, evidentiary processes are frequently hindered by the complexity of electronic evidence and the limited technical understanding among law enforcement officers. This study recommends regulatory reform, capacity building for human resources, international cooperation, and public education to strengthen the effectiveness of law enforcement against phishing crimes.