This study examines the implications of Constitutional Court Decision No. 199/PUU-XXIII/2025, which affirms the constitutionality of the interim replacement (Pergantian Antarwaktu/PAW) of members of the House of Representatives (DPR) at the initiative of political parties. It focuses on whether the Court’s interpretation of Article 22E paragraph (3) of UUD NRI 1945 is consistent with the principle of popular sovereignty and whether party-initiated recall remains constitutionally justified within an open-list proportional electoral system based on candidates’ highest vote totals. This study employs a legal research methodology using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches, examining the UUD NRI 1945, Law Number 17 of 2014, Law Number 2 of 2011, Law Number 7 of 2017, and relevant Constitutional Court decisions. The study argues that Decision No. 199/PUU-XXIII/2025 reinforces party sovereignty by relying on and repeating the reasoning of Decision No. 38/PUU-VIII/2010 without adequately rethinking the constitutional implications of the contemporary electoral system. Such jurisprudential repetition shifts control over the representative mandate from voters to political parties, weakens vertical accountability to constituents, and undermines the legitimacy of individual votes. The decision therefore risks transforming Indonesian representative democracy from a people-centered model into a party-centered electoral model, in which popular sovereignty is formally preserved but substantively weakened
From 2019 to 2024, East Java has consistently been the largest contributor of Indonesian Migrant Workers (PMI) and has received the Indonesian Migrant Worker Award six consecutive times. Despite this achievement, PMI remain highly vulnerable to human trafficking, violence, rights violations, and digital scam exploitation. These challenges are further compounded by budget efficiency policies and overlapping authorities between central and regional governments. This study examines the role of the East Java Provincial Government in the placement and protection of PMI through the frameworks of para-diplomacy and multi-level governance. The analysis emphasizes interactions among the state, sub-national governments, non-state actors, diaspora communities, and civil society as transnational protection agents. Using a qualitative approach, data were collected through in-depth interviews and document analysis. The findings indicate that effective migrant worker protection requires multi-layered and multi-actor synergy. Triangulation involving political actors (Regional House of Representatives), government agencies, PMI diaspora, and NGOs reveals a persistent normative–empirical gap between formal regulations such as Law No. 18/2017 and Local Regulation No. 2/2022 and protection practices on the ground. Nonetheless, several good practices were identified, including integrated one-stop services, helpdesk counters, mobile information units, Village Migration Regulations, and the development of Productive Migrant Villages. Community-based, cross-agency coordination has also played a significant role, particularly in legal advocacy, repatriation of problematic migrant workers, and migration literacy initiatives. Based on these findings, the study formulates a Hybrid Community-Based Protection System model, which integrates formal state mechanisms with community and diaspora social networks through a bottom-up approach. This research strengthens para-diplomacy and legal pluralism theories by highlighting non-state actors as transformational human capital agents in enhancing migration literacy, legal protection, and socio-economic empowerment of PMI. Practically, the study offers recommendations for regional policy innovation, improved cross-sector coordination, and the digitalization of migrant worker protection systems.
This study investigates how the Indonesian National Police (Polri) constructs its institutional communication in response to social media pressure during viral legal controversies, and how such responses affect police legitimacy in the digital age. Anchored in a socio-legal framework and employing Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis, the research focuses on a high-profile criminal case that triggered national outrage and sustained digital activism, without explicitly naming the case to preserve analytical generality. The analysis examines the use of formal diction, labeling strategies, language modality, and delegitimization of public criticism within Polri’s official communications. Data sources include press statements, social media content by the Police Public Relations Division, official remarks quoted in mainstream media, and related institutional documents. Findings reveal that viral public discourse exerts significant influence on institutional actions—such as forming special investigative teams and dismissing senior officials—highlighting the role of digital pressure in prompting accountability. However, the study also uncovers the temporary and reactive nature of these responses, particularly when public attention fades. By connecting institutional communication strategies with public expectations in digital spaces, this study argues that the legitimacy of law enforcement is increasingly shaped by the ability to engage transparently and consistently with the public—not merely by legal authority. Viral cases thus function as informal mechanisms of oversight. This research contributes to socio-legal scholarship by integrating insights from democratic policing, digital activism, and public accountability, offering a conceptual lens to understand the dynamic interplay between state institutions and digital society in contemporary Indonesia.
The paper examines the effectiveness and relevance of business competition law in regulating market dynamics in the AI era, and formulates an adaptive regulatory framework that aligns technological developments with the principles of justice and accountability. The method used is a normative-legal-research method with a qualitative approach. The paper's findings are that in the digital era driven by AI, the paradigm of business competition is undergoing a fundamental transformation that demands a profound reflection on existing legal principles. The phenomenon of machine-opoly, monopolies generated by autonomous AI agents, challenges traditional concepts of fair competition. This issue underscores the tension between technological innovation as a force for value creation and the need for fairness and balance in the market. From a theoretical perspective, AI presents non-human actors running complex algorithms, which opens up space for collusion and market domination practices that are difficult to detect and control by conventional regulation. The emergence of machine-opoly transformed traditional monopolies into dominance based on algorithms, data, and autonomous artificial intelligence. Through the TFEU and AI Act, the EU has integrated transparency and accountability into competition law, followed by the US, the UK, Australia, and China with similar adaptive measures. Indonesia, through Law No. 5 of 1999, still faces limitations in regulating algorithmic behavior. Therefore, regulatory reforms that emphasize algorithmic transparency and supervisory capacity are essential to maintain the fairness and innovation of digital markets.
The Public Housing Savings Law (UU Tapera) requires self-employed workers earning at least the minimum wage to participate as Tapera members, even though their income is not connected to any employer. This obligation stands in contrast to the Consumer Protection Law (UUPK), which ensures that consumers have the right to freely select goods and/or services based on their individual preferences. As Tapera consumers, self-employed workers should therefore retain the freedom to determine the financing model and capital-accumulation scheme they prefer for obtaining residential housing. Additionally, the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD 1945) guarantees every individual’s right to adequate housing. This article examines the compatibility of Article 7 paragraph (1) of the Public Housing Savings Law with Article 4 letter (b) of the Consumer Protection Law and Article 28H paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. Using a normative juridical research method, the study analyzes primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials on Tapera for self-employed workers from the perspectives of consumer protection and constitutional law. These materials are assessed to formulate scholarly insights presented in a constructive and argumentative manner. The study concludes that Article 7 paragraph (1) of the Public Housing Savings Law is inconsistent with the Consumer Protection Law and the constitutional guarantee of adequate housing. Accordingly, the article recommends clearly distinguishing the terms “workers” and “self-employed workers” in the law and regulating Tapera participation for self-employed workers on a voluntary basis.
