Reforming Civil Court in Indonesia: The Dialectics Of Procedural Justice and Digital Justice
(Reformasi Pengadilan Perdata di Indonesia: Dialektika Keadilan Prosedural dan Keadilan Digital)
Abstract
Abstract
This study analyzes new patterns that have emerged in civil justice reform in Indonesia. The functional approach, the common adoptedpattern, has shifted to an institutional approach. This shift, in addition to having an impact on the aspect of judicial governance, also creates dialectics in the form of conceptual tension in understanding justice in the judicial process. This article aims to examine the tension between procedural justice and digital justice. Procedural justice emphasizes the fairness of the process, the participation of the parties, and the legitimacy of the decision. Meanwhile, digital justice is oriented towards efficiency, transparency, and accessibility through technology. This study uses a juridical-normative research method with secondary data sources in the form of laws, regulations, and legal literature. This study also analyzes the development of e-Court, e-Mediation, and the case tracing information system (SIPP) in Indonesia. This research shows that strengthening the rationality of digital systems has the potential to clash with the character of procedural justice centered on human experience. This article also contributes to the formulation of the digital procedural justice framework as a theoretical synthesis of the tension between the two concepts. The framework is positioned as an evaluative tool for assessing technology-based judicial reform that is aligned with the principles of justice, legitimacy, and participation.
Abstrak
Penelitian ini menganalisis pola baru yang terbentuk dalam reformasi peradilan perdata di Indonesia. Pendekatan fungsional, dalam pola lama, mengalami pergeseran menjadi pendekatan institusional. Pergeseran ini, selain berdampak pada aspek tata kelola peradilan, juga membawa dialektika dalam bentuk ketegangan konseptual dalam memahami keadilan dalam proses peradilan. Artikel bermaksud mengkaji tegangan antara procedural justice dan digital justice. Procedural justice menekankan keadilan proses, partisipasi para pihak, dan legitimasi putusan. Sementara digital justice berorientasi pada efisiensi, transparansi, dan aksesibilitas melalui teknologi. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis‑normatif dengan sumber data sekunder berupa peraturan perundang‑undangan dan literatur hukum. Penelitian ini juga menganalisis perkembangan e‑Court, e‑Mediation, serta sistem informasi penelusuran perkara (SIPP) di Indonesia. Penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa penguatan rasionalitas sistem digital berpotensi berbenturan dengan karakter keadilan prosedural yang berpusat pada pengalaman manusia. Artikel ini juga berkontribusi pada perumusan kerangka digital procedural justice sebagai sintesis teoretis atas ketegangan antara dua konsep tersebut. Kerangka itu diposisikan sebagai alat evaluatif untuk menilai reformasi peradilan berbasis teknologi yang selaras dengan prinsip keadilan, legitimasi, dan partisipasi.
References
Ahmed, Rozha K., et al. “A Legal Framework for Digital Transformation.” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2021. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4182028.
Alexander, Charlotte S., and Lauren Sudeall. “Creating a People-First Court Data Framework.” Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 58 (2023): 735. https://ssrn.com/abstract=4582896.
Badó, Attila. Fair Trial and Judicial Independence: Hungarian Perspectives (Cham: Springer, 2017).
Ballell, Teresa Rodríguez De Las Heras. “Legal Challenges of Artificial Intelligence: Modelling the Disruptive Features of Emerging Technologies and Assessing Their Possible Legal Impact.” Uniform Law Review 24, no. 2 (June 2019): 302–14. https://doi.org/10.1093/ulr/unz018.
Beames, Emma. “Technology-Based Legal Document Generation Services and the Regulation of Legal Practice in Australia.” Alternative Law Journal 42, no. 4 (December 2017): 297–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/1037969X17732709.
Bioni, B.R., et al., “A Landmark Ruling from the Brazilian Supreme Court: Data Protection as an Autonomous Fundamental Right and Informational Due Process,” European Data Protection Law Review 6, No. 4 (2020): 615–24, https://doi.org/10.21552/edpl/2020/4/21.
Blader, Steven L., and Tom R. Tyler. “A Four-Component Model of Procedural Justice: Defining the Meaning of a ‘Fair’ Process.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 29, no. 6 (June 2003): 747–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203029006007.
———. “What Constitutes Fairness in Work Settings? A Four-Component Model of Procedural Justice.” Human Resource Management Review 13, No. 1 (2003): 107–126.
Bobocel, D. Ramona, and Leanne Gosse. “Procedural Justice: A Historical Review and Critical Analysis.” In The Oxford Handbook of Justice in the Workplace, edited by Russell S. Cropanzano and Maureen L. Ambrose, 4-6. 6Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199981410.013.3.
Bottoms, Anthony, and Justice Tankebe. “Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and Social Contexts.” In Denise Meyerson, Catriona Mackenzie, and Therese MacDermott (eds.), Procedural Justice and Relational Theory: Empirical, Philosophical, and Legal Perspectives, 86-90. London: Routledge, 2021.
Crouch, Melissa. “The Judicial Reform Landscape in Indonesia: Innovation, Specialisation and the Legacy of Dan S. Lev.” In The Politics of Court Reform, edited by Melissa Crouch, 1st ed., 15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108636131.001.
Ceva, Emanuela. “The Many Facets of Procedural Justice in Legal Proceedings.” In Denise Meyerson, Catriona Mackenzie, and Therese MacDermott (eds.), Procedural Justice and Relational Theory: Empirical, Philosophical, and Legal Perspectives, 185–190. London: Routledge, 2021.
Donoghue, Jane. “The Rise of Digital Justice: Courtroom Technology, Public Participation and Access to Justice.” Modern Law Review 80, no. 6 (2017): 901–1006.
Engstrom, David Freeman. “Digital Civil Procedure.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 169, no. 2243 (2021): 2258.
———. “The New Judicial Governance: Courts, Data, and the Future of Civil Justice.” DePaul Law Review 72, no. 2 (2022): 171–179.
Fox, Danielle, and Hisashi Yamagata. “Developing Court Capabilities and Insights through Data Conversion.” International Journal for Court Administration 13, no. 1 (April 2022): 5. https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.437.
Grossman, Maura R., and Gordon V. Cormack. “Technology-Assisted Review in E-Discovery Can Be More Effective and More Efficient Than Exhaustive Manual Review.” Richmond Journal of Law and Technology 17, no. 3 (2011): 40–48.
Hartung, Dirk, Florian Brunnader, et al. The Future of Digital Justice (The Netherlands: Boston Consulting Group, 2022). https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/4631.
HiiL. Use of Digital Technologies in Judicial Reform and Access to Justice Cooperation. 2021. https://www.hiil.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/HiiL-Use-of-digital-technologies-in-judicial-reform-and-access-to-justice-cooperation.pdf.
Harahap, M. Yahya. Ruang Lingkup Permasalahan Eksekusi Bidang Perdata (Jakarta: PT. Gramedia Pustaka Utama, 1993).
Leventhal, G. S. “What Should Be Done with Equity Theory? New Approaches to the Study of Fairness in Social Relationships.” In Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research, edited by K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, and R. Willis, 27–55. New York, NY: Plenum Press, 1980.
Leonard, Meghan E. “New Data on Court Curbing by State Legislatures.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 22, no. 4 (December 2022): 483–500. https://doi.org/10.1017/spq.2022.8.
Lind, E. Allan, and Tom R. Tyler. The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice (New York, NY: Plenum Press, 1988).
Lumbanraja, Anggita Doramia. “Perkembangan Regulasi dan Pelaksanaan Persidangan Online di Indonesia dan Amerika Serikat selama Pandemi Covid-19.” Jurnal Crepido 2, no. 1 (2020): 46–58.
Magrath, Paul. “Transparency, Data Protection and the Law Courts of the Future.” Legal Information Management 18, No. 2 (June 2018): 70-75. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1472669618000166.
Mahkamah Agung RI, Laporan Tahunan Mahkamah Agung Tahun 2024 (Jakarta: Mahkamah Agung RI, 2025).
Maroz, Raman, Oleksandra Popova, and Santiago Satizábal Acosta. Digitizing Court Systems: Benefits and Limitations. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1596/40951.
Mertokusumo, Sudikno. Hukum Acara Perdata Indonesia (Yogyakarta: Liberty, 2002).
Meyerson, Denise, and Catriona Mackenzie. “Procedural Justice and the Law.” Philosophy Compass 13, no. 12 (December 2018): e12548. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12548.
Mochtar, Zainal Arifin, and Eddy O.S. Hiariej. Dasar-Dasar Ilmu Hukum: Memahami Kaidah, Teori, Asas dan Filsafat Hukum (Depok: Red and White Publishing, 2021).
Mulyadi, Lilik. Hukum Acara Perdata Menurut Teori dan Praktik Peradilan Indonesia (Jakarta: Djambatan, 1998).
Radhiyya, Indra. “Court Officials Arrested over Acquittal in Palm Oil Corruption Case.” The Jakarta Post, April 14, 2025. https://www.thejakartapost.com/indonesia/2025/04/14/court-officials-arrested-over-acquittal-in-palm-oil-corruption-case.html.
Rendak, Nadia, and Damien Eastman. Legal and Judicial Reform: Recent Developments and Prospects (Washington DC: International Monetary Fund, 2006). https://doi.org/10.5089/9781589064447.058.
Richard Susskind, Online Courts and the Future of Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019).
Sapna S. and Abhishek Sharma Padmanabhan, “Legal Reforms in the Age of Digitization: Setting Realistic Goals,” Journal of Legal and Administrative Innovation (JLAI), Vol. 2, No. 1 (June 2023), pp. 1–15.
Susskind, Richard, and Daniel Susskind. The Future of the Professions: How Technology Will Transform the Work of Human Experts. Rev. ed (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020).
Thibaut, John, and Laurens Walker. Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1975).
———. “A Theory of Procedure.” California Law Review 66, no. 3 (1978): 541–559.
Thea DA, Ady, “Komisioner KY Beberkan 6 Perspektif Masyarakat Terhadap Pengadilan,” Hukumonline, https://www.hukumonline.com/berita/a/komisioner-ky-beberkan-6-perspektif-masyarakat-terhadap-pengadilan-lt629d75619e743/?page=2 (accessed on 16 October 2025).
Tyler, Tom R., and Avital Mentovich. Mechanisms of Legal Effect: Procedural Justice Theory (Philadelphia: Temple University, 2023).
World Bank. “Doing Business 2020: Enforcing Contracts.” Accessed October 16, 2025. https://archive.doingbusiness.org/en/data/exploretopics/enforcing-contracts.
Zainal Arifin, Mochtar. Politik Hukum: Pembentukan Undang-Undang (Jakarta: Buku Mojok, 2022).
Hukumonline. “Catatan Kritis 5 Guru Besar Hukum Acara Perdata Tentang E-Court.” Accessed October 16, 2025. https://www.hukumonline.com/berita/baca/lt5b72a77076d07/catatan-kritis-5-profesor-hukum-acara-perdata-tentang-e-court.
Suherman, Heru, Heru Sugiyono, and Muthia Sakti. Hukum Acara Perdata Indonesia: Dalam Teori dan Praktik (Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada, 2025).
Copyright (c) 2026 Umar Mubdi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
