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.

LEGAL PLURALISM: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STATE LAW AND CUSTOMARY LAW IN THE MALIND-ANIM INDIGENOUS PEOPLE

2026-07-07T21:37:13+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.

DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES IN THE MECHANISM OF REGIONAL HEAD ELECTIONS BY THE DPRD: A CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW IN A PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM

2026-07-07T21:38:24+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