Axcelia Deandra Surya

Balancing Formalism and Justice An Analysis of Indonesian Mahkamah Agung’s Obscuur Libel Case Law in Light of ECtHR Standards

Introduction

Balancing formalism and justice an analysis of indonesian mahkamah agung’s obscuur libel case law in light of ecthr standards. Analyze Indonesia's Supreme Court (Mahkamah Agung) Obscuur Libel cases. Examines legal formalism vs. justice using ECtHR standards to enhance fair trial rights & access.

Abstract

Legal formalism plays a crucial role in ensuring consistency and predictability in judicial decision-making. However, excessive formalism can obstruct access to justice by prioritising procedural technicalities over substantive justice. This paper examines the Indonesian Supreme Court’s approach to Obscuur Libel cases where lawsuits may be dismissed due to failure to meet formal requirements. By analysing these decisions in light of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) standards, this study explores the tension between procedural rigour and substantive justice. The paper assesses whether Indonesian case law aligns with ECtHR principles on fair trial rights and access to justice and identifies instances where excessive formalism may hinder judicial fairness. It further proposes guidelines to balance legal certainty with substantive justice, ensuring procedural fairness without unduly restricting legal remedies. By offering suggestions for enhancing procedural justice in Indonesia's legal system, this study adds to the larger conversation on judicial formalism and access to justice.

Review

This paper tackles a highly relevant and perennially debated issue within legal scholarship: the delicate balance between procedural formalism and the overarching goal of substantive justice. Focusing specifically on "Obscuur Libel" cases before the Indonesian Supreme Court (Mahkamah Agung), the study critically examines instances where procedural technicalities lead to the dismissal of lawsuits, potentially impeding access to justice. By highlighting this tension in a specific jurisdiction, the abstract successfully frames a research question that resonates far beyond Indonesia, contributing to the broader discourse on judicial efficiency, fairness, and human rights. The proposed methodology, involving a comparative analysis with the standards set by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on fair trial rights and access to justice, is a particularly strong aspect of this research. The ECtHR's jurisprudence offers a robust and internationally respected benchmark against which to evaluate the Indonesian Supreme Court's practices. This comparative approach is well-suited to identify specific divergences, assess the degree of alignment, and pinpoint where excessive formalism in Indonesian case law might genuinely obstruct judicial fairness. The intention to dissect these decisions and propose guidelines demonstrates a commitment not just to critique, but also to offer constructive pathways for reform. The potential impact of this study is significant. Beyond its direct contribution to Indonesian legal scholarship by offering concrete suggestions for enhancing procedural justice, the paper promises to enrich the global conversation on judicial formalism. The development of guidelines aimed at balancing legal certainty with substantive justice, ensuring procedural fairness without unduly restricting legal remedies, could serve as a valuable model for other jurisdictions grappling with similar challenges. This research is therefore poised to be an insightful and practical contribution to the fields of comparative law, judicial studies, and human rights.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.