International Journal of Law, Environment, and Natural Resources

The problematics of plea bargaining implementation from the perspective of the principle of justice and due process of law in indonesia

2026-09-28T01:06:38+00:00

Indonesia's criminal procedural reform under Law No. 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) introduces the Guilty Plea (Plea Bargain) mechanism as a new instrument intended to address the need for expeditious, simplified, and low-cost case resolution. The introduction of this mechanism raises fundamental questions concerning its position within a criminal justice system rooted in the civil law tradition, as well as its consistency with the principle of justice and the doctrine of due process of law. This study examines the regulatory framework and juridical standing of the plea bargaining concept within Indonesia's criminal justice system, and evaluates whether its implementation is consistent with the principle of justice and due process of law. The study employs normative legal research using the statute approach, the conceptual approach, and a limited comparative approach, analyzed qualitatively through legal reasoning and interpretation. John Rawls's Theory of Justice and Gustav Radbruch's Theory of Legal Certainty serve as the principal analytical frameworks. The findings indicate that the guilty-plea mechanisms codified in Articles 78, 205, and 234 of the KUHAP constitute three distinct arrangements that have not yet coalesced into a unified plea bargaining regime comparable to that of common law jurisdictions, but rather represent a selective adaptation that preserves the judge's active role and the orientation toward material truth. With respect to consistency with justice and due process of law, the implementation of guilty pleas is capable of achieving alignment where voluntariness of the admission, access to counsel, and substantive judicial oversight are consistently observed, yet risks departing from both principles where the imbalance between the defendant and the public prosecutor, procedural pressure, and the absence of detailed implementing regulation are left unchecked. The study concludes that more detailed implementing regulations and rigorous judicial supervision are required to prevent the guilty-plea mechanism from reducing substantive justice to mere procedural efficiency.

Legal certainty and clarity of formulation in the omnibus law technique in indonesia: from conditional unconstitutionality toward formal validity

2026-10-05T03:50:07+00:00

The application of the Omnibus Law technique in the formation of Law Number 11 of 2020 on Job Creation has raised problems of legal certainty within Indonesia’s civil law system, particularly with regard to the principle of clarity of formulation. Previous research has tended to discuss Constitutional Court Decision Number 91/PUU-XVIII/2020 and the regulation of the omnibus technique through Law Number 13 of 2022 separately, and therefore has not linked those developments to a continuing assessment of legal certainty. This study analyzes the implications of the change in the status of the Omnibus Law technique, as well as its legal certainty, based on the principle of clarity of formulation. The study employs a normative legal method using statute, conceptual, and case approaches. The results show that Decision Number 91/PUU-XVIII/2020 located the problem in the procedural aspects of lawmaking and did not remove the requirement of meaningful participation, whereas the regulation of the omnibus technique through Law Number 13 of 2022 provides formal legitimacy without necessarily resolving the constitutional problems of the Job Creation Law. Substantively, the omnibus technique still faces problems of accessibility, predictability, and coherence due to its cross-sectoral scope and the complexity of its regulation. This study offers an indicator-based analytical framework for distinguishing formal legitimacy, constitutional validity, and substantive legal certainty in the formation of laws and regulations.

A blueprint for future press legislation protecting every element of the media in the use of information technology

2026-10-02T03:22:50+00:00

Law Number 40 of 1999 on the Press has never once been amended, while the responsibility of digital platforms rests only in a presidential regulation and the use of artificial intelligence only in an institutional regulation. This study formulates future press legislation capable of protecting every element of the media in the use of information technology. It is normative legal research, descriptive, analytical and prescriptive in character, employing statutory, conceptual, comparative and case approaches, and analysed deductively against a coherence criterion of legal truth. The result is a blueprint for new press legislation comprising ten principal substances: expanded definitions of the press following the journalistic function; a guarantee of press freedom in both its negative and positive dimensions; a mandatory tiered mechanism of dispute resolution; strengthening of the Press Council; a chapter on the responsibility of digital platform companies; a chapter on artificial intelligence; a journalistic exemption in personal data protection; verification of press companies and protection of citizen journalists; content moderation under judicial supervision; and a harmonising lex specialis clause. The blueprint is crowned by an original theoretical construction, the Theory of Dignified Press Coherence, built on four axioms, five dimensions of coherence and five propositions. The article concludes that the core problem of Indonesian press law is incoherence, and that its remedy is coherence embodied in certain statutory norms.

Judge's understanding of unlawful elements in the verdict of corruption cases in indonesia

2026-10-09T05:09:54+00:00

Corruption is a crime with far-reaching consequences for state finances, national development, and public trust in the administration of government. One of the essential elements that must be proven in corruption cases is the element of unlawfulness (melawan hukum), which determines whether an act may be classified as a criminal offense and whether the perpetrator may be held criminally liable. This study aims to analyze the concept of the unlawfulness element in the crime of corruption and to understand how judges interpret and apply it in court decisions. The research method used is normative legal research with a statutory approach and a case approach, through the analysis of various court decisions. The results show that the concept of unlawfulness in corruption offenses can be understood through two approaches: formal unlawfulness and substantive (material) unlawfulness. However, developments in the law particularly Constitutional Court Decision No. 003/PUU-IV/2006 have limited the application of the substantive-unlawfulness concept in corruption cases. In addition, Constitutional Court Decision No. 25/PUU-XIV/2016 changed the understanding of the state-loss element from a potential loss to an actual loss. Nevertheless, in judicial practice judges still take substantive considerations into account such as the public interest, benefit to society, and state losses in determining criminal liability. Clear regulation of the unlawfulness element is therefore needed so that the enforcement of corruption law can provide legal certainty while also reflecting a sense of justice.

A comparative analysis of mediation regulations and procedures for civil dispute resolution in indonesia and south korea

2026-10-06T07:23:55+00:00

Mediation is one of the mechanisms for civil dispute resolution that has become increasingly integrated into judicial systems, including in Indonesia and South Korea. Although both countries recognize mediation as a means of promoting amicable dispute resolution, differences exist in the regulatory framework, the involvement of courts, the position of mediators, and the scope of party autonomy. This study aims to analyze the legal framework governing mediation in civil dispute resolution in Indonesia and South Korea and to compare the mediation procedures in both countries from the perspective of voluntariness and party autonomy. This study employs normative legal research using statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches. Legal materials are analyzed descriptively, analytically, and comparatively by examining provisions concerning the initiation of mediation, court referrals, the roles of judges and mediators, the conduct of mediation, and the legal consequences of mediation outcomes. The findings indicate that Indonesia regulates mediation through relatively detailed and standardized procedural requirements under Supreme Court Regulation Number 1 of 2016, whereas South Korea provides courts with greater discretion under the Judicial Conciliation of Civil Disputes Act. These differences demonstrate that the integration of mediation into the judicial system does not necessarily eliminate voluntariness, provided that decisions concerning the substance of the settlement remain with the parties. However, the greater the authority exercised by courts in directing and determining the settlement process, the more important it becomes to safeguard party autonomy.