Abstrak.

Maintaining order in the courtroom is essential for ensuring fair and efficient judicial proceedings. However, Indonesian courts face increasing challenges in managing courtroom decorum due to evolving disruptive behaviors driven by technological advancements and societal changes under the 4th Industrial Revolution. This research examines the current state of courtroom management in Indonesia, identifying gaps such as unauthorized electronic recordings, inadequate systems for remote trial decorum, and insufficient courtroom security measures. Using a literature-methods approach, the study analyzes incident reports, judicial practices, and international best practices from countries like Germany, Japan, and Canada. Findings reveal significant weaknesses in the regulation of technology use, courtroom security frameworks, and the public perception of traditional practices. The research concludes that Indonesia’s judiciary must adopt forward-thinking strategies to enhance courtroom management and public trust. Key recommendations for the Supreme Court include regulating electronic device usage, establishing a court police system, introducing summary procedures for in-court offenses, and revising the “all rise” practice to align with cultural sensitivities. These measures ensure a resilient, adaptive judiciary prepared to address current and future challenges effectively.

Baca Jurnal Selengkapnya

Abstrak.

The correctional system in Indonesia is designed to rehabilitate prisoners humanely, without discrimination. However, in practice, female prisoners often face inequal treatment due to correctional structures and policies that are still gender biased. This article aims to analyse the gap in human rights protection for female prisoners in Indonesia through a normative legal research approach supported by empirical data, which is then analysed qualitatively. The results of the study found that although the national legal framework already includes human rights principles, in practice, female prisoners still face various structural injustices and gender bias, such as a lack of reproductive health facilities, insufficient protection from violence, and limited access to women-friendly basic services. This article concludes that there is a need for policies to guide the treatment of female prisoners and to strengthen oversight mechanisms to ensure the fulfilment of human rights for female prisoners. This study contributes to developing a more just and equitable correctional law.

Baca Jurnal Selengkapnya

Abstract.

This paper examines the ineffectiveness of the pretrial mechanism in Indonesia in guaranteeing the right of suspects to submit and request examination of exculpatory evidence during the investigation stage. Although the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) provides a legal basis for this right, no rules guarantee that investigators will conduct such examinations, as evidenced by several cases in which investigators ignored such requests. This study is normative legal research, employing a statutory, conceptual, and comparative approach. It compares the Brady Rule in the United States, which requires prosecutors to disclose evidence favorable to the defendant, and the Dutch model of the ‘rechter-commissaris‘, which grants judges the authority to oversee investigative actions actively. The results of this study recommend expanding the authority of pretrial judges to order investigators to examine mitigating evidence based on requests from the suspect or their legal counsel. This reform is important to realize the principles of fair trial, favor defensionis, and equality of arms, as well as to strengthen constitutional protection of human rights and the values of Pancasila. Preliminary hearings, as conceptualized here, can address the injustices that remain unresolved despite decades since the enactment of the CPC in 1981.

Baca Jurnal Selengkapnya

Abstrak.

The active role of judges is essential in ensuring the fair resolution of administrative and civil disputes. In the Administrative Court, judges are required to act under the dominus litis principle, which empowers them to take proactive steps in clarifying facts, guiding proceedings, and balancing the unequal positions between individuals and government authorities. This active role aims to uphold justice and protect citizens from administrative actions that violate legal norms or principles of good governance. In civil cases, by contrast, judges generally adopt a passive stance in accordance with the audi et alteram partem and party autonomy principles, although limited judicial intervention may still be necessary to safeguard fairness when power imbalances arise. This study employs a normative legal research method using statutory and conceptual approaches to examine the active judicial role’s legal framework and theoretical justification. Drawing on theories of legal certainty, judicial activism, and due process of law, the study finds that while judicial activism is crucial to achieving substantive justice and transparency, it must operate within defined limits to preserve impartiality and procedural balance. Thus, the proper calibration of judicial activism serves not only to protect the integrity of the judicial process but also to ensure that justice remains both fair and effective in practice.

Baca Jurnal Selengkapnya

Abstrak.

The main question and context of the discussion is whether the concept of impoverishment through asset confiscation in corruption cases in Indonesia fulfills the aspect of justice for defendants. This research will play a role in providing legal boundaries and certainty regarding the concept of impoverishment. This research used normative legal research. Normative legal research focuses on analyzing legal rules, principles, and doctrines to understand how the law should be, rather than how it is practiced. This research showed that the concept of impoverishing perpetrators of corruption crimes is interpreted as the confiscation of wealth/assets belonging to perpetrators of corruption crimes, which are the proceeds of corruption, and carried out in accordance with applicable regulations. Asset confiscation from perpetrators of corruption crimes must be implemented with legal measures that do not disregard the sense of justice and without disregarding or respecting the rights of the defendants and the property rights of others unrelated to the corruption case being handled, so the execution in the form of asset confiscation that can provide a sense of justice as it is conducted in a civilized manner and based on humanitarian values. Confiscating the wealth of defendants in corruption cases must be carried out proportionally, and the confiscation of individuals suspected of committing criminal acts of corruption must be upheld and must not violate constitutional principles.

Baca Jurnal Selengkapnya

Abstrak.

This study aims to analyze the authority of judges in applying the principle of restorative justice in cases involving children in conflict with the law and the obstacles to its implementation. The research approach uses a normative legal method with a legislative, conceptual, and case approach. Secondary data were collected through a review of six main laws, eight court decisions, and twenty-five related academic sources, then analyzed qualitatively using deductive reasoning. The results show that the authority of judges in applying restorative justice is based on the value of substantive justice as stipulated in Supreme Court Regulation Number 1 of 2024. However, its implementation is still hampered by regulatory inconsistencies between law enforcement agencies, a low level of understanding among officials and the public, and the absence of uniform technical guidelines. This study emphasizes the need for regulatory synchronization and capacity building among officials to ensure the effective and fair implementation of restorative justice oriented towards the best interests of children in Indonesia.

Baca Jurnal Selengkapnya

Abstrak.

This study compares legal maxims or legal principles in common law and Islamic law, focusing on the similarities and differences in applying these rules in dispute resolution. The legal maxim in these two legal systems is a fundamental principle that guides judges and legal practitioners in interpreting legal rules and deciding cases. In common law, legal maxims develop through precedent and jurisprudence. In contrast, in Islamic law, this rule comes from religious texts such as the Qur’an and Hadith, as well as the development of law by scholars. The normative-comparative approach method is used to analyze the similarities and differences of the maxim legal in both legal systems. This method helps identify important points of similarity and differences and reveals ways in which the two legal systems can complement each other. This comparative study concludes that Common Law and Islamic Law originate from different foundations, secular precedent versus divine revelation; they share a fundamental commitment to justice, embodied in maxims like “no punishment without law.” Their paths diverge in methodology: Common Law prioritizes legal certainty through precedent, while Islamic Law seeks balance through moral objectives (maqasid-al-shari’ah). Significantly, in pluralistic systems like Indonesia, these traditions converge pragmatically. Courts creatively blend principles, merging pacta sunt servanda with al-`ādatu muhakkamatun to deliver legally sound and contextually just rulings. This demonstrates that the future of effective dispute resolution lies not in choosing between systems, but in their thoughtful integration to achieve substantive justice.

Baca Jurnal Selengkapnya

Abstrtak.

The concept of Administrative Decisions (KTUN) has evolved considerably since the promulgation of the Government Administration Law (AP Law), especially with the broadening of disputed objects to cover governmental actions. This change was further reinforced by Regulation of Supreme Court Number. 2 of 2019, transferring jurisdiction over tort claims against government officials from the GeneralCourts to the Administrative Courts (PTUN). However, its implementation remains challenging, especially regarding the cumulative filing of KTUN and tort lawsuits, remaining unregulated explicitly, as referred to in Supreme Court Decision No. 343 K/TUN/TF/2024 and number 594 K/TUN/TF/2024. The core issues include the ratio legis behind the expanded interpretation of KTUN under AP Law, judicial reasoning in accepting the accumulation of disputed objects and formulating an ideal concept for combining KTUN and factual actions in one claim. This research adopts a normative (doctrinal) method with a casuistic-conceptual approach. The findings indicate that the expansion of KTUN under AP Law aims to enhance legal protection for citizens against administrative actions, promote good governance, ensure governmental accountability, and broaden the supervisory role of PTUN. Supreme Court Decisions Number 343 K/TUN/TF/2024 and Number 594 K/TUN/TF/2024 affirm that cumulative claims involving KTUN and factual actions are permissible when both share a strong legal correlation as part of a single administrative series. The ideal concept of cumulative lawsuits includes close legal relevance, consistency among the object, legal grounds, and claims, support for a swift, simple, and low-cost judicial process, promotion of legal utility, prevention of conflicting rulings, and avoidance of prohibited claim mixing.

Baca Jurnal Selengkapnya