Jurnal Restorative Justice

Efektivitas Pembinaan Kepribadian terhadap Anak Binaan pada Lembaga Pemasyarakatan Kelas II Maros

2026-07-08T15:56:58+09:00

This study aims to analyze the implementation of personality development programs at the Class II Juvenile Correctional Institution of Maros while evaluating its effectiveness in rehabilitating the character of children in conflict with the law, ensuring their successful social reintegration without relapsing into recidivism. This empirical legal research uncovers objective field facts through structural and cultural approaches, utilizing both primary and secondary data. Data collection was scientifically conducted via direct observation and in-depth interviews, which were then analyzed descriptively and analytically using qualitative inductive reasoning. The findings indicate that while the implementation of religious programs, counseling, and character building has procedurally operated comprehensively through collaborative governance, it remains suboptimal due to the absence of a standardized national curriculum and a shortage of specifically competent correctional officers. Furthermore, the program's effectiveness has merely achieved a level of formal, pseudo-compliance. The high administrative participation rate is actually inversely proportional to the actual behavior within the housing blocks, which are still marked by indiscipline due to the strong influence of a criminal subculture among the juvenile inmates. This fundamental ineffectiveness is simultaneously driven by internal factors such as a lack of intrinsic motivation stemming from broken homes, and external factors including a monitoring gap by officers and the absence of a halfway house facility to bridge social reintegration post-release.

Pluralisme Hukum: Relasi Hukum Negara Dan Hukum Adat Pada Masyarakat Adat Malind-Anim

2026-07-21T00:00:40+09:00

Abstract

This research aims to examine the construction of legal pluralism in the relation between state law and Malind Anim customary law within Law Number 21 of 2001 concerning Special Autonomy for the Papua Province as well as its amendment, Law Number 2 of 2021 concerning the Second Amendment to Law Number 21 of 2001 concerning Special Autonomy for the Papua Province (Papua Special Autonomy Law). Although the Papua Special Autonomy Law broadly recognizes customary law, this research finds a paradigmatic tension between the normative ideal of strong legal pluralism and the regulatory reality characterized by weak legal pluralism. Utilizing normative legal research methods with statute and conceptual approaches, this study dissects Law Number 21 of 2001 jo. Law Number 2 of 2021 along with its implementing regulations (Perdasus). The results indicate that the legal construction built by the state separates protection into two main clusters: political rights attached to Indigenous Papuans (Orang Asli Papua or OAP) and property rights as well as jurisdiction attached to Customary Law Communities (Masyarakat Hukum Adat or MHA). However, the legality of rights in this second cluster is not purely autonomous (self-executing) but relies on procedural formalization through Perdasus. Analysis of Perdasus Number 20 of 2008 and Perdasus Number 23 of 2008 demonstrates that these derivative legal products of the Papua Special Autonomy Law actually operationalize the logic of legal centralism which reduces the autonomy of indigenous communities, both by limiting the jurisdiction of customary courts and facilitating the release of customary communal rights (hak ulayat), which are at times inconsistent with the cosmological philosophy of the Malind- Anim indigenous people, namely Anim Ha. This proves that special autonomy in Papua is essentially a form of decentralized legal centralism, wherein the national legal system remains the superordinate that subordinates customary law.

Prinsip Demokrasi Dalam Mekanisme Pemilihan Kepala Daerah Oleh DPRD: Tinjauan Konstitusional Dalam Sistem Presidensial

2026-07-20T23:54:53+09:00

The discourse regarding the mechanism for electing regional heads through Regional People’s Representative Councils (DPRD) has re-emerged amidst various problems in the implementation of direct regional elections in Indonesia, including money politics, high political costs, and social polarization. This discourse raises constitutional debates concerning the interpretation of the phrase “elected democratically” as stipulated in Article 18 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, particularly in relation to the presidential system adopted by Indonesia. This study aims to analyze the meaning of democratic principles in the mechanism for electing regional heads and to examine whether the election of regional heads by DPRD is compatible with the principles of democracy within a presidential system. This research is normative legal research employing statutory, conceptual, historical, and case approaches. The legal materials used consist of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials analyzed qualitatively through constitutional interpretation and legal reasoning methods. The results of the study indicate that the phrase “elected democratically” should be interpreted as the direct election of regional heads by the people as a manifestation of popular sovereignty and as a constitutional consequence of the presidential system. In a presidential system, executive legitimacy must derive directly from the people in order to maintain the principles of separation of powers, executive independence, and checks and balances. The election of regional heads by DPRD potentially weakens democratic legitimacy, creates political dependence of regional heads on DPRD, opens space for political bargaining, and shifts the character of regional governance toward a quasi-parliamentary model. Therefore, direct regional elections are not merely procedural democratic mechanisms, but also constitute a constitutional necessity in maintaining the consistency of Indonesia’s presidential system and strengthening local democracy

Urgensi Reformulasi Kebijakan Hukum Pengendalian Faktor Risiko Lingkungan Terhadap Kesehatan

2026-07-22T12:21:38+09:00

Degradasi kualitas lingkungan, perubahan iklim, urbanisasi, industrialisasi, dan eksploitasi sumber daya alam telah meningkatkan risiko gangguan kesehatan masyarakat sekaligus memunculkan tantangan baru dalam sistem hukum Indonesia. Meskipun Undang-Undang Nomor 17 Tahun 2023 tentang Kesehatan telah menempatkan kesehatan lingkungan sebagai bagian integral dari sistem kesehatan nasional, implementasinya masih menghadapi berbagai kendala berupa disharmonisasi regulasi, tumpang tindih kewenangan, dan lemahnya koordinasi lintas sektor. Penelitian ini bertujuan menganalisis konstruksi pengaturan hukum mengenai pengendalian faktor risiko lingkungan terhadap kesehatan, mengidentifikasi kelemahan regulasi pasca berlakunya Undang-Undang Nomor 17 Tahun 2023 tentang Kesehatan, serta merumuskan model reformulasi kebijakan hukum yang lebih integratif, preventif, adaptif, dan berkelanjutan. Penelitian menggunakan metode yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan peraturan perundang-undangan, konseptual, dan kebijakan. Data diperoleh melalui studi kepustakaan terhadap bahan hukum primer, sekunder, dan tersier, kemudian dianalisis secara kualitatif dengan teknik deskriptif-analitis. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa persoalan utama bukan terletak pada terbatasnya regulasi, melainkan belum terintegrasinya rezim hukum kesehatan dan hukum lingkungan dalam satu sistem tata kelola yang harmonis. Reformulasi kebijakan hukum perlu diarahkan pada harmonisasi regulasi, penguatan koordinasi lintas sektor, serta penerapan paradigma One Health, precautionary principle, prevention principle, dan risk-based regulation. Secara teoretis, penelitian ini memperkaya pengembangan hukum kesehatan, sedangkan secara praktis memberikan rekomendasi bagi pembentuk kebijakan dalam mewujudkan sistem pengendalian faktor risiko lingkungan yang lebih efektif serta mendukung perlindungan hak atas kesehatan masyarakat.

Penghapusan Alat Bukti Petunjuk dan Pengakuan Pengamatan Hakim dalam Kuhap Baru: Kajian Doktrinal Terhadap Sistem Pembuktian Pidana Indonesia

2026-07-20T23:52:03+09:00

Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2025 tentang Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana membawa perubahan mendasar pada sistem alat bukti dengan menghapus alat bukti petunjuk dan mengakui pengamatan hakim sebagai alat bukti mandiri. Penelitian ini bertujuan menganalisis dua persoalan doktrinal yang ditimbulkan oleh perubahan tersebut: implikasi yuridis penghapusan alat bukti petunjuk terhadap konsistensi sistem negatief wettelijke bewijstheorie, serta kedudukan pengamatan hakim sebagai alat bukti mandiri ditinjau dari aspek objektivitas, verifikabilitas, dan jaminan fair trial bagi terdakwa. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan dan konseptual, bersumber pada bahan hukum primer, sekunder, dan tersier yang relevan. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa sistem negatief wettelijke bewijstheorie tidak runtuh melainkan bertransformasi, selama Pasal 244 mempertahankan syarat kumulatif dua alat bukti sah dan keyakinan hakim, esensi sistem tersebut tetap berlaku meskipun daftar alat bukti kini bersifat terbuka. Penghapusan petunjuk justru memperkuat kepastian hukum dengan mengeliminasi instrumen yang selama ini paling rentan terhadap inkonsistensi penerapan. Sebaliknya, pengamatan hakim menghadirkan cacat bawaan yang lebih pelik, sistem ini menempatkan hakim dalam fungsi ganda sebagai sumber sekaligus penilai alat bukti tanpa tersedianya mekanisme kontestasi bagi terdakwa berbeda dari sistem Belanda yang mensyaratkan kewajiban pengungkapan dan kesempatan merespons bagi para pihak sebagai safeguard legitimasinya. Penelitian ini merekomendasikan Mahkamah Agung segera menerbitkan Peraturan Mahkamah Agung yang menetapkan standar prosedural penggunaan pengamatan hakim guna menjamin kepastian hukum dalam praktik peradilan pidana Indonesia.

Assessing The Alignment Of National Law With International Instruments In Fulfilling The Right To Access To Justice For Indigenous Peoples

2026-07-27T15:29:53+09:00

Indigenous peoples in Indonesia systematically face normative and structural barriers that trigger the marginalization of their living spaces and the failure to fulfill their right to justice. This study aims to assess the degree of alignment between national regulations and international instruments, particularly the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), regarding the right to access to justice for indigenous peoples, while mapping the normative barriers in domestic agrarian disputes. The research method employed is normative juridical, utilizing statutory, comparative, and conceptual approaches. The results demonstrate a sharp paradigm misalignment. UNDRIP promotes the recognition of inherent rights (sui generis) and the principle of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC). Conversely, Indonesian positive law is characterized by state-centered positivism (positivisme etatis), which reduces customary land rights (hak ulayat) to state-granted rights through restrictive administrative prerequisites via Regional Regulations (Peraturan Daerah). At the judicial level, civil procedural law is highly formalistic-positivistic, elevating written evidence (Article 1867 of the Indonesian Civil Code) and thereby sidelining customary evidence based on oral traditions or natural boundaries. This condition is exacerbated by contemporary regulations, such as the Job Creation Law through the Land Bank institution and the New Criminal Code, which escalate conflicts and structural criminalization, as seen in Rempang Island and Nangahale. The prolonged delay in enacting the Indigenous Peoples Bill creates an absolute norm vacuum that perpetuates a pseudo formalistic-procedural justice. Therefore, a progressive reconstruction of legal policy is required through the accelerated enactment of the Indigenous Peoples Bill, the issuance of Supreme Court Regulations to equalize non-written evidence, and the integration of customary courts into the national judicial system to achieve substantive justice.

Penerapan E-Perda Pada Biro Hukum Sekretariat Daerah Provinsi Papua Selatan

2026-07-23T13:51:01+09:00

Such recognition and protection are essential to provide legal certainty to the community so that their land rights are not violated by anyone. This state's right to control/control must be strictly limited for the future and it is time to consider alternatives to the state's right to control so that this right can be limited in its conception and implementation. In addition, land management is needed as one of the government's efforts to realize the arrangement of land utilization and use so that the social function of land rights is realized. In the social function of land rights, it does not mean that the interests of individuals or indigenous communities are completely pressured by the public interest. This study uses the Sociolegal method. The results of the study show that customary rights are recognized by the UUPA, but this recognition is accompanied by two conditions, namely regarding "its existence" and regarding its implementation, customary rights are recognized "as long as in reality they still exist", as stated in article 3. In areas where customary rights have never existed, no new customary rights are born. The implementation of customary rights is regulated in Article 3, "The implementation of customary rights must be in accordance with national and state interests, based on national regulations, and must not conflict with other laws and regulations."