Constitutional Law Society

SUPERVISION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL OVER THE PRESIDENT'S POLICY IN DECLARING A STATE OF EMERGENCY

Kaleb Anggi Three Putra Sagala — 2026-03-20

This research is motivated by the increasing use of emergency powers by the President in responding to national crises which has the potential to expand executive power and impact the protection of citizens' rights. This research aims to analyze the regulation and effectiveness of the DPR RI's supervision of the President's policy in determining state emergency status based on Article 12 of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. The method used is normative juridical research with a qualitative descriptive analytical approach through literature study and analysis of statutory regulations. The research results show that normatively the DPR RI's oversight mechanism has been regulated through legislative, budget and oversight functions, including approval of Government Regulations in Lieu of Laws. However, empirically, this supervision still tends to be formal and does not fully guarantee accountability and protection of citizens' rights. Therefore, the DPR RI's supervisory function needs to be strengthened so that the principles of the supremacy of law and constitutional democracy are maintained in emergency conditions.

RECONSTRUCTING THE JUDICIAL SUPERVISION PARADIGM IN INDONESIA: ANALYSIS OF CONSTITUTIONAL COURT DECISION NO. 39/PUU-XIII/2015

Arif Budiman — 2026-03-21

This study examines fundamental weaknesses in judicial supervision in Indonesia following Constitutional Court Decision Number 39/PUU-XIII/2015. Using normative legal research with statutory, case-based, conceptual, and comparative approaches, the research identifies a critical research gap: the absence of comprehensive frameworks that integrate oversight of judicial technical reasoning with ethical evaluation in ways that maintain judicial independence while strengthening institutional accountability. This study theoretically contributes to the development of balanced independence-accountability theory by reconceptualizing judicial supervision as a system that enables rather than constrains judicial professionalism. The findings indicate three central issues. First, Constitutional Court Decision Number 39/PUU-XIII/2015 has significantly narrowed the authority of the Judicial Commission by restricting oversight related to judicial technical matters, creating institutional vulnerability. Second, both internal and external supervisory mechanisms failed to detect early indications of bribery in the acquittal verdict of Gregorius Ronald Tannur, despite striking inconsistencies between the court's legal reasoning and the evidentiary record, demonstrating critical gaps in monitoring systems. Third, judicial supervision in Indonesia remains predominantly reactive rather than proactive, addressing issues only after they surface in criminal proceedings. This study recommends regulatory reform through the enactment of the Judicial Office Bill, revision of the Judicial Commission Law, and integration of artificial intelligence systems with appropriate safeguards to identify anomalous judicial decisions. These measures aim to strengthen preventive mechanisms while preserving judicial independence and ensuring institutional accountability.

INSTITUTIONAL DESIGN AND CONSTITUTIONAL LEGITIMACY OF HUMAN RIGHTS SUPPORT INSTITUTIONS AFTER REFORMATION IN INDONESIA

Eza Tri Yandy — 2026-03-23

The normative framework of Articles 28A–28J of the 1945 Constitution and Law No. 39 of 1999, as well as the establishment of independent institutions supporting human rights protection as a manifestation of the state's commitment to guaranteeing the constitutional rights of citizens and fulfilling its international obligations, marked a significant transformation of Indonesia's human rights protection system during the transition from the New Order regime to the Reform era. This research attempts to fill the gap in comprehensive analysis of the institutional legitimacy of human rights, the urgency of their establishment, and the problems in the implementation of their functions and authorities. Legal materials are examined both descriptively and qualitatively in this study, which employs a normative juridical method with a legislative, case, and conceptual approach. The study's findings indicate that while the normative and institutional framework for human rights protection has been comprehensively regulated, the implementation of these institutions' functions still faces three main problems: overlapping authority (for example, between the Attorney General’s Office and the National Commission on Human Rights in handling serious human rights cases), limited resources (budget and institutional capacity), and sociological aspects (low public awareness of the law). Therefore, there are three main aspects as recommendations from the institutional constraints faced, namely strengthening the regulatory framework of authority, establishing coordination mechanisms between institutions, and providing adequate institutional capacity support.

CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW OF THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION: AN ANALYSIS OF CONSTITUTIONAL COURT DECISION NO. 3/PUU-XXII/2024

Rengga Kusuma Putra — 2026-03-24

Decision No. 3/PUU-XXII/2024 of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia represents a significant development in the trajectory of Indonesian legal politics, particularly in relation to right to education as the constitutional protection enshrined in the 1945 Constitution. Although the ruling carries substantial implications for the interpretation of state obligations in the education sector, scholarly discussion has largely focused on the doctrinal aspects of constitutional adjudication, leaving limited attention to the broader fiscal and political implications of the decision within Indonesia’s governance framework. This study therefore seeks to examine the constitutional meaning and policy consequences of the ruling through a descriptive qualitative approach, with particular attention to the normative structure of the Court’s reasoning and the social justice values underlying its interpretation. The analysis focuses on how the Constitutional Court articulates the relationship between constitutional mandates, state responsibility, and the protection of individual educational rights within the broader framework of Indonesia’s welfare-oriented constitutionalism. The findings indicate that Decision No. 3/PUU-XXII/2024 strengthens the constitutional status of education as a positive right that requires active state intervention. At the same time, the ruling clarifies the scope of governmental obligations in ensuring equitable access to education while implicitly raising questions regarding fiscal allocation, institutional capacity, and policy prioritisation in the implementation of constitutional guarantees. By situating the decision within the broader discourse on the political theory of education law and the adjudication of socio-economic rights, this article contributes to the development of a normative framework that understands education not purely as a matter of public policy but as a constitutionally mandated instrument for achieving social justice. Ultimately, the study argues that the decision reflects a more responsive orientation in Indonesian legal politics, one that seeks to align constitutional interpretation with the pursuit of substantive equality in the national education system.

RECONSTRUCTING THE STATUS OF CONSTITUTIONAL COURT RESEARCHERS

Sonia Ivana Barus — 2026-03-25

Researchers at state institutions were forced to leave their positions, including those at the Constitutional Court. Researchers then lose the opportunity to hold the title of research professor. These researchers were also given a new duty, which was to help courts and give Constitutional Justices substantial support. The predicate “assistance" in this rule, which receives no detailed explanation, leads to multiple interpretations and affects the productivity of assistants to expert constitutional judges. Based on this, it is interesting to discuss how the status quo regulates career paths and academic freedom of Constitutional Court researchers in personnel law and how the ideal concept of setting career paths and academic freedom for researchers at the Constitutional Court. This study uses a normative research method, in which its results implicitly suggest a return to the previous rules. The researcher also suggests that the positions of assistant judge and researcher be strictly separated and that opportunities be provided for researchers to hold the title of academic professor. Researchers think BRIN should merge research institutions with the same form and function.

LEGAL CERTAINTY AND ELECTORAL SEPARATION AFTER DECISION 135/PUU-XXII/2024

Satmawati — 2026-03-25

Constitutional Court Decision Number 135/PUU-XXII/2024 has significantly reshaped the discourse on Indonesia’s electoral system by mandating the separation of national and regional elections. While the ruling is presented as a constitutional effort to enhance electoral integrity and administrative effectiveness, it simultaneously raises fundamental concerns regarding legal certainty, particularly in relation to the tenure of members of the Regional People’s Representative Council (DPRD). This study examines the Court’s constitutional reasoning (ratio decidendi) underlying the separation of election schedules and critically assesses its implications for democratic legitimacy and the principle of electoral periodicity. Employing a normative juridical approach that integrates statutory, conceptual, and case-based analysis, this article demonstrates that although the decision may be justified as electoral reform, it risks producing constitutional distortion by blurring the boundary between judicial interpretation and norm creation. Without clear transitional safeguards, the ruling threatens to undermine popular sovereignty and legal certainty in Indonesia’s constitutional framework.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL DIMENSION OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IN CORRUPTION CASES: A STUDY OF CONSTITUTIONAL JUSTICE CRISIS IN THE PT. TIMAH INDONESIA CASE

Tiara Maharani — 2026-03-25

The enforcement of anti-corruption law in Indonesia not only concerns the punishment of the main perpetrators but also the protection of the judicial process itself. One of the serious threats to the integrity of the judicial system is obstruction of justice, which interferes with the process of investigation, prosecution, and adjudication of corruption cases. Article 21 of the Indonesian Anti-Corruption Law regulates obstruction of justice as an independent offense intended to safeguard the judicial process. However, its practical enforcement often reveals inconsistencies that undermine constitutional justice. This article analyzes obstruction of justice from the perspective of constitutional law by positioning it as a constitutional offense that threatens the fundamental principles of the rule of law and judicial independence. Using a normative juridical method with constitutional, statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches, this research examines the PT Timah corruption case, particularly the decision of the Pangkalpinang District Court concerning obstruction of justice committed by Toni Tamsil. The findings reveal a significant disparity between the normative framework of Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law and its application in judicial practice. The relatively light sentence imposed in the case reflects a broader crisis of constitutional justice in the enforcement of obstruction of justice in Indonesia. The study argues that obstruction of justice should be treated as a constitutional offense because it directly undermines the integrity of the judiciary, weakens anti-corruption efforts, and erodes public trust in the rule of law. Strengthening constitutional interpretation in the enforcement of obstruction of justice is therefore necessary to ensure the protection of judicial independence and the effectiveness of corruption eradication.

CONSTITUTIONAL CONTROL OF EMERGENCY POWERS IN INDONESIA'S PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM

Ahmad Ainun Najib — 2026-03-26

The constitutional regulation of emergency powers presents a significant challenge for contemporary constitutional democracies, particularly within presidential systems where executive authority often expands during crises. In Indonesia, this issue is encapsulated in Article 12 of the 1945 Constitution, which grants the President the authority to declare a state of emergency without clearly delineating substantive thresholds, temporal limits, or institutional mechanisms of control. The ongoing reliance on Law No. 23 Prp of 1959 further entrenches a security-oriented framework that increasingly diverges from Indonesia’s post-amendment constitutional commitment to the rule of law and human rights protection. This article explores constitutional controls over emergency powers in Indonesia through a doctrinal and comparative constitutional analysis. It assesses the normative coherence and institutional adequacy of Indonesia’s emergency powers framework by situating it in a comparative perspective with South Korea and Brazil, two presidential systems that have developed more structured constitutional mechanisms for regulating emergencies. The comparison emphasizes differentiated emergency regimes, legislative involvement, temporal limitations, and judicial oversight as key tools for constraining executive discretion during crises. The article concludes that Indonesia’s emergency powers framework remains normatively under-specified and institutionally fragile, resulting in fragmented emergency governance and weak constitutional accountability. Drawing on comparative insights, the article identifies reform implications aimed at strengthening constitutional controls, particularly through clearer emergency standards, enhanced legislative and judicial oversight, and the reconceptualization of emergency powers as a constitutionally regulated exception rather than an open-ended executive prerogative.

AGRARIAN DISPUTE RESOLUTION RELATING TO COMMON LAND USE NON-LITIGATION CHANNELS TO REGISTER AREA 45 IN MESUJI

Anggalana — 2026-03-26

The agrarian dispute over customary land in the Register 45 Mesuji Forest Area is a structural conflict involving the state, corporations, and local communities. The verification of production forest areas and the issuance of management permits to private entities without taking into account the rights and existence of the communities that have long managed and used the land are the main causes of this dispute. The current settlement strategy, which has involved coercive measures and litigation, has not worked and has even prolonged the war and exacerbated human rights abuses. The objectives of this study are to evaluate the efficacy of non-litigation dispute settlement, analyze the features of agricultural conflicts in Register 45 Mesuji, and investigate how customary land disputes are resolved in other nations. Statutory, conceptual, and comparative legal techniques are all part of the normative juridical research methodology. The research results of the study demonstrate that agricultural conflicts in Register 45 are complex and cannot be adequately settled by a formal court system alone. Since non-litigation dispute resolution techniques like discussion and mediation promote inclusive discourse, lessen conflict escalation, and uphold community rights, they have a higher chance of achieving substantive justice. Studies comparing South Africa, Brazil, and the Philippines demonstrate that the state's active mediation role and acknowledgement of indigenous peoples' collective rights are essential to the long-term settlement of agricultural disputes. This study suggests a Register 45 conflict resolution approach that uses multi-party mediation focused on restorative justice and human rights protection, temporary acknowledgment of community management rights, and participatory inventory.

CRIMINALIZATION POLICY OF DEEPFAKE IN INDONESIAN ELECTIONS

Rachmat Irvan — 2026-03-27

Technological engineering in the form of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly through deepfake content, has given rise to new forms of cybercrime that are complex and multidimensional. However, Indonesia’s positive law has yet to specifically regulate this phenomenon, resulting in legal uncertainty. This study aims to examine the effectiveness of existing regulations and to formulate an ideal criminalization policy. It employs normative juridical research with statutory and conceptual approaches. The main findings reveal that regulations such as the Electronic Information and Transactions Law (UU ITE) and the Personal Data Protection Law (UU PDP) are reactive in nature and do not provide a technical definition of deepfake. This absence complicates digital forensic evidence and law enforcement, further exacerbated by structural weaknesses such as poor inter-agency coordination and low levels of digital literacy among the public. The scientific contribution of this article lies in its proposal for a multidimensional regulatory strategy that not only focuses on legal reform through the formulation of new criminal provisions, but also integrates the strengthening of forensic technology and the enhancement of digital literacy as preventive instruments within criminal law policy.