I. Background
Echoing Lord Chief Justice Hewart’s famous principle that ‘justice must not only be done, but must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done (Jacob, 2009), Indonesian Chief Justice Prof. Dr. Sunarto, S.H., M.H., reiterated this standard at the Chamber’s Plenary Session in Jakarta on November 9, 2025 (Hasany, 2025). Manifesting justice in the real world necessitates a deep connection with the lived experiences and values of a society. Therefore, achieving justice requires a theoretical approach to justice using different methods, each of which produces unique results.
From a strictly textualist perspective, the application of law is often viewed as a straightforward exercise in literal implementation. This viewpoint suggests that when a statute is drafted by experts and ratified by parliament—free from external influence—the resulting norms leave no room for interpretive debate and should inherently produce equitable outcomes for the public. Thus, in theory of law widely known as a positivism (Asshiddiqie & Safa’at, 2012; Kelsen, 1992, 2005) or legalism paradigm. Conversely, critics of legal positivism and strict legalism argue that such frameworks are excessively rigid. They contend that rather than reflecting communal justice, these concepts often serve primarily to advance the interests of the sovereign (Rahardjo, 2007). Furthermore, when judicial outcomes are entirely predictable and bound strictly to the letter of the law, it becomes nearly impossible to differentiate between human reasoning and machine logic (Atmasasmita, 2012). The discourse regarding the most appropriate paradigm for enforcing justice remains a perpetual subject of debate within legal philosophy.
Modern legal complexities require more than a rigid application of theory. Judges must be prepared to look deeper into the societal context of each case, preserving their integrity and the rule of law against the threats of institutional interference, conflicts of interest, and corruption (Mirza & Parahyanti, 2025). Despite the mandate for theoretical mastery, judges are tasked with the near-impossible duty of being both saintly and impartial while satisfying the demands of all parties. This divine weight rests heavily upon the shoulders of mortal beings who remain, by nature, imperfect.
This work examines the inherent challenges and paradoxes facing the Indonesian judiciary as they implement Articles 3 and 5 of Act No. 48 of 2009 on Judicial Power, alongside the newly enacted Criminal Code (Act No. 1 of 2023) and the Criminal Procedure Code (Act No. 20 of 2025). Within this modern context, the study utilizes a qualitative methodology, drawing upon field observations, extensive literature reviews, and a series of interviews conducted with a diverse cohort of Indonesian judges across varying levels of seniority.
II. Key Findings
A. Systemic Constraints on the Realization of Justice within the Indonesian Judiciary
The confluence of digital advancement, fluctuating economic conditions, and evolving social values has fundamentally restructured the challenges within the judiciary. Current observations suggest that the courts must navigate a spectrum of multidimensional pressures, such as:
- The disruption of information;
Pervasive digital disruption has catalyzed a profound shift in human behavioural archetypes, altering how individuals interact with information, institutions, and one another (Dienaputra, 2020). This shift is driven by the omnipresence of the digital landscape, where the proliferation of pervasive and often orchestrated misinformation exerts a global influence on human behaviours (Walker, 2011). In Indonesia, misinformation regarding judicial proceedings is particularly prevalent in cases involving national figures or viral content. This phenomenon is closely linked to shifting media paradigms, where the dissemination of fragmented narratives can distort public perception and incite societal unrest. Furthermore, when a verdict fails to align with popular expectations, the judiciary often becomes the target of public animosity—a reaction frequently fueled by a lack of engagement with the ratio decidendi or the evidentiary facts presented at trial. - Trial by The Media and Press;
Following the disruption of information bring out the phenomena of trial by media and press. The concept of ‘trial by the press and media’ refers to an extrajudicial process in which press and media outlets assume the role of the court. Through the construction of preemptive narratives, the media and the public interfere with the sanctity of the judicial process, undermining the court’s mandate to conduct an objective assessment of the evidence (Suresh & George, 2021). The phenomena of ‘trial by media’ and ‘trial by the press’ function as a double-edged sword within the legal ecosystem. While they serve a vital democratic role by fostering public awareness and encouraging judicial accountability, they simultaneously pose a significant risk as instruments of indirect intervention and institutional intimidation against the judiciary (Agung, 2026). - External political or public interventions;
Within legal and political frameworks, intervention is defined as external interference intended to manipulate the resolution of a dispute. In the judicial sphere, such actions disrupt the bilateral relationship between the litigants and the court, inherently threatening the neutrality of the proceedings. Beyond direct institutional pressure, the judiciary now faces a rising trend of public activism-demonstration. Demonstrations have transitioned from challenging executive policies to actively seeking to dictate judicial decisions, posing a novel threat to judicial autonomy. Demonstrations are more than manifestations of dissatisfaction; they are essential exercises of sovereignty that ensure government accountability. However, their democratic legitimacy is fragile. If these movements are manipulated by external interests to undermine law enforcement, they devolve from a means of conveying truth into a destructive and manipulative tool that threatens the very foundations of the rule of law. - Public scepticism;
Public confidence in the Indonesian judiciary has reached a critical nadir, a direct consequence of historical corruption and perceived systemic bias. This pervasive scepticism serves as the primary catalyst for ‘trial by media’ and populist demonstrations. Even when a verdict is theoretically sound and strictly adheres to existing regulations, it is frequently met with allegations of judicial bribery. The lack of public confidence in the courts makes the rule of law more vulnerable and increases the risk that public actors, legislatures, and ordinary people might ignore court orders and mandates over time (Thamrin, 2020).
B. The Paradox
Law Number 48 of 2009 presents two critical, yet potentially conflicting, obligations for the judiciary. Article 5(1) urges judges to be receptive to the ‘sense of justice’ residing in society, advocating for a sociologically informed approach to adjudication. While the regulation encourages a sociologically informed judiciary, the reality of digital disruption and public scepticism makes identifying a genuine ‘sense of justice’ increasingly difficult. Manipulated information often serves as a veil for certain interests, placing the burden on the judge to uncover the truth. Fulfilling this duty requires immense bravery, as judges often face severe vilification and professional isolation when their decisions diverge from the ‘viral’ narrative. The path of judicial independence, therefore, remains a solitary and challenging journey.
In such instances, abstract legal theories often fail to satisfy the public’s visceral demand for justice. The conceptualization of ‘justice’ remains inherently pluralistic; every stakeholder maintains a personalized definition based on their unique socio-economic or moral perspective. Consequently, it is a logistical and judicial impossibility for a court to render a decision that satiates the competing appetites of a fractured public, as one party’s ‘justice’ is inevitably perceived as another’s ‘injustice’.
However, the article 53 of Law Number 1 of 2023 concerning Criminal Code (KUHP) states that “When adjudicating a criminal case, a judge is obliged to uphold the law and justice. If, in upholding the law and justice, there is a conflict between legal certainty and justice, the judge is obliged to prioritize justice.” This legal norm mirrors the triadic tension identified by Gustav Radbruch, who posited that the values of legal certainty (Rechtssicherheit), expediency or utility (Zweckmäßigkeit), and justice (Gerechtigkeit) often enter into a state of conflict. Radbruch’s philosophy suggests that while certainty is vital for the stability of the state, there exists a threshold where positive law becomes so ‘intolerably unjust’ that it must yield. In such critical junctures, the judicial mandate shifts toward enforcing the values that are most substantively just and socially beneficial (Prasetyo & Barkatullah, 2017; Rasjidi & Sidharta, 1989; Santoso, 2015).
In the face of conflicting legal values, the judiciary must determine whose justice is being served. Is the priority the justice of the victim, the fundamental rights of the perpetrator, or the moral and legal integrity of the judge’s own decision?
These inquiries form a decades-long paradox within judicial discourse, yielding diverse interpretive responses. One school of thought posits that in criminal proceedings, the judge must prioritize the restorative justice of the victim. Conversely, proponents of legal formalism argue that the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code were established to ensure procedural equality; thus, prioritizing one party over the other constitutes a fundamental injustice. A third perspective suggests that regardless of competing interests, the judge’s sole duty is to uphold factual integrity, adhering strictly to the evidentiary record and the dictates of their professional conviction.
Under the weight of unprecedented public pressure, judges are often urged to perform as infallible instruments of divine justice. This creates an unsustainable paradox: the people demand a manifestation of perfection from individuals who possess inherently mortal souls and imperfect bodies. Acknowledging this ‘human element’ is essential to understanding the immense burden carried by the modern judiciary in its struggle to enforce justice for all.
C. Closing Statement
The preceding discussion underscores that upholding truth and justice requires active civic stewardship. The disruption of information, trial by the media and press, external political or private interventions and public scepticism is involved the role of all citizen. It is incumbent upon society to distinguish between manufactured narratives and objective truth. The ideal of universal justice can only be manifested if the populace affords the judiciary the necessary autonomy to function without interruption. By resisting the urge to intervene in ongoing cases, society protects the very independence required for the rule of law to flourish.
REFERENCES
Agung, B. jiwo. (2026, April 8). Dinamika Trial By The Press and Media & Contempt Of Court. Dandapala.
Asshiddiqie, J., & Safa’at, M. A. (2012). Teori Hans Kelsen Tentang Hukum. Konstitusi Press.
Atmasasmita, R. (2012). Teori Hukum Integratif : Rekonstriksi terhadap Teori Hukum Pembangunan dan Teor Hukum Progressif. Genta Publishing.
Dienaputra, R. D. (2020). Historical Disruption Through Technology. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change. Www.Ijicc.Net, 12(4), 2020. www.ijicc.net
Hasany, A. Z. Al. (2025, November 9). Keadilan Bukan Hanya Harus Ditegakkan, Namun Harus Terlihat Ditegakkan. MARINews.
Jacob, R. (2009). Knowledge of the World and the Act of Judging. Osgoode Hall Review of Law and Policy, 2(1), 22–28. http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohrlphttp://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohrlp/vol2/iss1/2
Kelsen, H. (1992). Introduction To the Problems Of Legal Theory (B. L. Paulson & S. L. Paulson, Eds.). Clanderon Press.
Kelsen, H. (2005). Pure Theory of Law. The Lawbook Exchange LTD.
Mirza, M., & Parahyanti, E. (2025). Meaningful Work Protects Judges with Occupational Stress, Secondary Traumatic Stress, and Burnout. Jurnal Hukum Dan Peradilan, 14(1), 91–130. https://doi.org/10.25216/jhp.14.1.2025.91-130
Prasetyo, T., & Barkatullah, A. H. (2017). Filsafat, Teori & Ilmu Hukum: Pemikiran Menuju Masyarakat yang Berkeadilan dan Bermartabat. Raja Grafindo Persada.
Rahardjo, S. (2007). Membedah Hukum Progresif. Kompas.
Rasjidi, L., & Sidharta, B. A. (1989). Filsafat Hukum Mazhab dan Refleksinya. Remaja Karya.
Santoso, A. (2015). Hukum, Moral, dan Keadilan : Sebuah Kajian Filsafat Hukum. Kencana.
Suresh, N., & George, L. S. (2021). Trial by media: An overview. Int’l JL Mgmt. & Human, 4(2), 267.
Thamrin, H. (2020). LAW ENFORCEMENT IN INDONESIA IN THE PERSPECTIVE OF LAW STATES. Awang Long Law Review, 2(2), 89–92.
Walker, R. (2011). The Civil War: A Visual History (J. Dunne, P. Regan, G. Farfour, & S. Mumford, Eds.). DK Publishing.
Untuk Mendapatkan Berita Terbaru Suara BSDK, Follow Channel WhatsApp: SUARABSDKMARI