Mimbar Keadilan

Deconstructing the Criminal Justice System in Nepal: Toward a Victim-Centered Justice Paradigm within the Shadows of a Hybrid Legal System

Bimal Prasad Lamicchane — 2026-01-28

Nepal’s criminal justice system, despite undergoing legislative reforms, remains entangled in a historical legacy rooted in hierarchical social structures and patriarchal values. This legal system, marked by minimal implementation of justice principles, has yet to realize a truly participatory and victim-centered model of justice. This study aims to evaluate the extent to which legal reforms in Nepal have ensured more equitable and victim-oriented justice, and how legal transformation within the criminal justice system can be actualized. Through a critical examination of Nepal’s legal history, constitutional texts, and legislative reform initiatives, this article assesses the dissonance between progressive legal theories and practical implementation. Employing a normative-juridical approach with an emphasis on critical legal analysis and a comparative-historical perspective, the study reveals that, despite legislative efforts to reduce inequality and discrimination, law enforcement practices continue to reflect structural disparities that neglect the needs of victims and reinforce state dominance in criminal proceedings. Accordingly, current reforms remain insufficient to achieve substantive change and necessitate an ideological transformation toward a legal paradigm that is more responsive and sensitive to victims’ rights.

Justice Without Teeth: The Illusion of International Accountability in the Rohingya Crisis

Ananda Felix Mursito — 2026-01-28

Violence against the Rohingya community in Myanmar has emerged as one of the most systematic and brutal humanitarian tragedies in contemporary history. Amidst the realities of genocide, crimes against humanity, and forced deportation, international law faces an acute challenge in demonstrating its normative and operational reach. This article aims to provide a philosophical and juridical analysis of the international legal constellation surrounding the crimes committed against the Rohingya ethnic group, the responsibility of the State of Myanmar, and the failure of the international community to uphold the principles of justice. This study employs a normative-juridical method using both conceptual and case-based approaches, and it critically examines international legal norms such as the Rome Statute, the 1948 Genocide Convention, the principle of jus cogens, and the doctrine of erga omnes obligations. The analysis reveals that the crimes committed against the Rohingya community constitute not only grave violations of fundamental norms of international law but also reflect a collective failure of the global community in fulfilling its responsibilities. Moreover, the study identifies a stagnation in the enforcement of legal accountability, rooted in political factors, institutional weaknesses, and the normalization of diplomatic relations. The article recommends strengthening transnational mechanisms and establishing an ad hoc tribunal as necessary measures for the restoration of substantive justice for victims and for reaffirming the supremacy of international law over impunity.

Debt and Fiscal Justice in the Global South: Argentina and Indonesia under IMF and World Bank Intervention

Rizky Bangun Wibisono — 2026-01-28

This article examines sovereign debt as both an economic mechanism and a political instrument that sustains structural inequalities between the Global North and South. Through a qualitative comparative study of Argentina and Indonesia, and drawing on dependency theory, postcolonial political economy and fiscal justice frameworks, the paper argues that international financial institutions such as the IMF and World Bank constrain fiscal autonomy and policy space in developing countries. In the Indonesian context, domestic elites—including technocrats, oligarchs, and state bureaucrats—play a central role in entrenching project-based debt dependency for political and economic gain. While Argentina serves as a cautionary tale, early signs of resistance emerge through South-South cooperation and BRICS-led alternatives. By integrating structural and actor-centered perspectives, this study contributes to debates on global debt governance and calls for reforms that advance distributive and procedural justice in fiscal policymaking. Keywords: IMF, debt diplomacy, global inequality, fiscal justice.

Recalibrating Philippine Criminal Justice: A Legal Analysis of Restorative Justice within the Framework of the Juvenile Justice and Barangay Systems

Theresa Liquigan Eustaquio — 2026-01-28

The Philippine criminal justice system remains predominantly retributive, shaped by colonial legacies and a legal culture deeply entrenched in punitive responses to crime. While recent legislation, particularly the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act (RA 9344), has introduced restorative justice mechanisms, their implementation remains limited in scope, uneven across jurisdictions, and largely confined to youth offenders. This creates a normative inconsistency that undermines the constitutional aspirations for a humane, equitable, and socially responsive justice system. This paper critically examines the structural contradictions within the current legal framework and assesses the potential of restorative justice as a legal and moral alternative in the Philippine context. Employing a doctrinal legal research method, supported by socio-legal analysis, the study investigates statutory enactments, jurisprudential developments, and institutional practices to map the operational boundaries and normative gaps in restorative justice implementation. The findings reveal that restorative justice in the Philippines lacks a coherent statutory foundation beyond juvenile justice, suffers from institutional fragmentation, and is hindered by the absence of inter-agency coordination among the DOJ, DSWD, LGUs, and civil society stakeholders. Despite this, the study affirms that restorative justice aligns with constitutional mandates on due process, social justice, and human dignity. It also offers a culturally resonant approach to justice, particularly when integrated with indigenous and community-based mechanisms. This paper concludes with a call for statutory reform, institutional redesign, and pedagogical transformation to mainstream restorative justice as a constitutionally grounded alternative to the prevailing punitive model.

The Paradox of Justice in the Free Nutritious Meal Program

Shintia Lailatul Firdaus — 2026-01-28

The Free Nutritious Meal Program, initiated under Presidential Regulation No. 83 of 2024 concerning the National Nutrition Agency, represents a strategic government policy aimed at improving children’s nutritional quality as part of fulfilling the right to health guaranteed under Article 28H paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. However, in practice, the implementation of MBG has generated serious problems, including mass food poisoning incidents affecting more than 7,000 students across various regions. This article employs a juridical-normative approach. The findings reveal that the absence of a regulatory framework—given that the implementation of MBG relies solely on internal technical guidelines of the National Nutrition Agency without a binding legal basis equivalent to a Presidential Regulation—has resulted in a normative vacuum, weakened food safety standards, and the lack of an emergency legal response mechanism. Such conditions amount to violations of the right to health, the right to food safety, and social justice. From the perspective of justice theory, although MBG was intended as an instrument of distributive justice, substantively it fails to deliver fairness and capability, instead creating new vulnerabilities for marginalized groups, particularly children. Moreover, the involvement of military and police apparatus in the management of the Free Nutritious Meal Program undermines the system of checks and balances in public administration, rendering MBG a concrete example of policy failure that erodes the principle of social justice.

Redesigning the Authority of Autonomous Region in Geothermal Management: a Constitutional Justice Perspective

Syofyan Hadi — 2026-01-28

The purpose of this study is to analyse the authority of autonomous regions in geothermal management and to find a fair redesign of the division of geothermal management authority to autonomous regions. This study is a legal study with a statute, conceptual, and case approach. The primary and secondary legal materials that have been collected are then analysed normatively. The results of the study found that through the principle of the broadest possible autonomy, the central government decentralizes some concurrent government affairs to autonomous regions. One of the concurrent affairs is geothermal affairs. However, Law No. 23 of 2014 regulates the centralization of geothermal permit issuance, so that it only becomes the authority of the Central Government. In fact, this centralization is strengthened by the Constitutional Court Decision Number 11/PUU-XIV/2016. In fact, this causes injustice to autonomous regions. After all, it is contrary to Article 18 paragraph (2) and paragraph (5) and Article 18A paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and is inconsistent with Law No. 23 of 2014 because it only uses the principle of national strategic interests. Therefore, as an effort to provide justice for the regions, the regulation needs to be redesigned by dividing the authority to grant geothermal permits among the regions. The division of authority is carried out using the principles of accountability, externality, and efficiency by considering the location/place of the geothermal permit, users, and benefits/negative impacts of granting geothermal permits, as well as efficiency in the implementation of granting geothermal permits.

Legal Analysis of WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism Application in US 19% Tariff Case Against Indonesia for Trade Justice

Muhammad Wendra — 2026-01-28

This research stems from the reciprocal and protectionist policy of increased import tariffs by the United States, which disrupts free trade that has been functioning properly and creates injustice in international trade. Especially toward Indonesia, which was also affected by this policy, where the 19% reciprocal agreement with the United States still resulted in violations of international law, as determined by the WTO. Regarding this, this study aims to provide a legal analysis of the importance of the potential application of WTO dispute resolution to the United States' 19% tariff policy in its reciprocal agreement with Indonesia in order to achieve justice in the international trading system. This research uses a normative legal research method by examining international regulations (protocols) implemented by the WTO to ensure dispute resolution and the conduct of international trade processes. The results of this study indicate that the 19% import tariff policy by the United States thru its reciprocal agreement with Indonesia still violates import tariffs, the principle of good faith, and international trade monopolies. Therefore, Indonesia has the potential to resolve the dispute at the WTO by challenging the 19% tariff policy. This research recommends that a country, particularly Indonesia in this case, pursue formal dispute resolution within the WTO, including retaliation, as well as diplomatic approaches to find common ground (a win-win solution) for both parties.

Right to be Forgotten vs. Public Information Disclosure to Public Officials in Indonesia

Bertha Cahyadewi — 2026-02-01

The advancement of information technology, which renders digital footprints permanent, has generated new problems in the protection of personal data, including for public officials who possess narrower privacy boundaries than private citizens. Research aims to explore the potential conflicts between the right to be forgotten and long-standing principle of transparency in Article 28F of the 1945 Republic of Indonesia's Constitution. Additionally, this paper looks at which public servants should be protected by the Right to Forget Law under Indonesian national laws or administrative regulations. This research deals with the difference between Indonesian National Laws for public servants and the right to be forgotten. It also discusses laws from “Republic of Indonesia No. 19/2016 Electronic Information Transactions Law of Republic of Indonesia No. 14/2008 Disclosure of Public Information Laws”. EU policy as well as the direction taken in member states such as France. The findings of the research show that the applicability of the Right to be Forgotten for public servants cannot be in an absolute form since information about their tasks of offices, track records, alleged ethical or legal violations, and actions that have an impact on the public is information that must remain accessible as part of public accountability. Additionally, this research reveals discrepancies in the court's and the Information Commission's authority when it comes to responding to information removal requests, which may lead to jurisdictional disputes. In conclusion, the public interest must be considered when evaluating any use of the Right to be Forgotten by public officials. Considering the proportionality principle and regulatory harmonization is required to sustain transparent and accountable government by ensuring the proper finding a balance between protecting people's privacy and giving the public the right to know.

Presidential Term Limits, Constitutional Justice, and Eternity Clauses: Preventing Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments in Indonesia

Haikal Arsalan — 2026-02-01

Constitutional justice functions as a substantive mechanism to uphold constitutional supremacy, limit state power, and protect fundamental democratic values. In presidential systems, one of its most critical institutional expressions is the regulation of presidential term limits, which aims to prevent the concentration of executive authority and to ensure democratic leadership rotation. This article examines the relationship between presidential term limits, constitutional justice, and the doctrine of eternity clauses as a means of preventing unconstitutional constitutional amendments in Indonesia. The study aims to assess whether presidential term limits should be constitutionally entrenched as unamendable provisions in order to safeguard Indonesia’s post-authoritarian constitutional order. Employing normative legal research, this study applies conceptual and statutory approaches by analyzing constitutional theory, comparative constitutional practices, constitutional court decisions, and Indonesian constitutional provisions, particularly the 1945 Constitution and its amendments. The findings demonstrate that presidential term limits are frequently targeted through formally valid constitutional amendments that substantively erode democratic principles, illustrating the paradox of unconstitutional constitutional amendments. Comparative experiences from Latin America, Africa, and Europe reveal that the removal or extension of term limits systematically reinforces incumbency advantages and weakens checks and balances. In the Indonesian context, debates surrounding the possibility of extending presidential terms highlight the vulnerability of constitutional safeguards when amendment procedures are dominated by political majorities. This article argues that designating presidential term limits as an eternity clause—or at minimum treating them as a substantive constitutional principle subject to strict judicial protection—is essential to preserving constitutional justice. Such entrenchment would reinforce Indonesia’s constitutional identity, prevent the abuse of amendment powers, and ensure that constitutional change remains aligned with democratic accountability and the rule of law.

Revisiting Justice in Income Tax Article 23 Withholding and Corporate Income Recognition

Julie Ekapuri Widjaja — 2026-02-01

Taxpayers operating as corporations are required to maintain proper bookkeeping, which mandates that every transaction be recorded in accordance with the period in which it occurs. Corporations engaged in service provision are subject to withholding of Income Tax (PPh) Article 23 by the income provider at the time of payment for the services rendered. The Withholding Tax Evidence (BUPOT) for PPh Article 23 serves as a tax credit that can be accounted for in the Annual Corporate Income Tax Return (SPT Tahunan PPh Badan). This study aims to examine the legal inconsistencies regarding the withholding period of PPh 23 in relation to the income recognition of corporate taxpayers from the perspective of fairness, while also proposing solutions to address the issues arising from these discrepancies. The methodology employed in this research is a normative legal approach utilizing the statute approach. The findings indicate that the withholding of PPh Article 23 for corporate taxpayers in the service sector can lead to significant overpayment or underpayment of taxes each fiscal year, particularly when gross revenue fluctuates from year to year. Additionally, this study identifies several potential solutions that could be implemented to resolve the various challenges encountered.

Who Owns the Parliamentary Seat? Party Sovereignty, Legislative Recall, and Republican Justice in Indonesia’s Democracy

Sultoni Fikri — 2026-02-04

The mechanism of Pergantian Antar Waktu (PAW) for legislators in Indonesia reflects a structural tension between popular sovereignty and party sovereignty. Although constitutionally recognized, PAW in practice is predominantly initiated and controlled by political parties, often without the involvement or consent of voters. This raises a fundamental constitutional problem concerning the erosion of representative freedom and the subordination of voters’ political will to internal party interests. Within a democratic constitutional, such a configuration invites critical scrutiny, particularly when assessed through normative theories of justice and freedom. This study aims to critically examine the legal construction and implementation of party-initiated PAW and to assess its compatibility with the principles of republican justice. The research seeks to demonstrate how PAW operates as a mechanism of arbitrary power that undermines the representative mandate and weakens popular sovereignty. This research employs legal research with a statutory approach and a conceptual approach. The study finds that party-initiated PAW institutionalizes a form of structural domination, where legislators and voters are placed in a condition of dependency on party discretion. The absence of public participation and effective accountability mechanisms renders PAW an exercise of arbitrary power incompatible with republican freedom. The novelty of this research lies in its application of Philip Pettit’s republican justice theory to Indonesian constitutional law, offering a critique that reconceptualizes PAW not merely as a procedural issue, but as a constitutional injustice rooted in domination over popular political will.