Genuine Justice in Court Decisions Depends on Judges’ Ability to Understand Social Realities
FORMOSA NEWS – Justice in court decisions cannot be measured solely by compliance with written legal rules. A recent study conducted by Sandrik Puji Maulana, Dadang Komara, Gugun Restu Yudhistira, and Khairul Khalil from Universitas Terbuka, Indonesia, found that the quality of judicial decisions is also determined by judges’ ability to balance legal certainty, social utility, and the sense of justice that exists within society. The findings were published in 2026 in the International Journal of Integrative Research (IJIR). The research examines how substantive justice is reflected in court rulings and how it is implemented under Law Number 48 of 2009 on Judicial Power. The study is significant because court decisions are the primary instruments used by the state to resolve disputes and are also key indicators of public trust in the judicial system. In Indonesia, judges are expected to do more than simply apply legal texts. Article 5 paragraph (1) of Law Number 48 of 2009 requires judges to explore, understand, and apply the legal values and sense of justice that live within society. As a result, judicial decisions should not only enforce legal rules but also address the broader expectations of fairness held by the public.
The Challenge of Bridging Law and Social Justice
In practice, a gap often exists between formal legal norms and society’s perception of justice. A decision that is legally correct may still be viewed as unfair if it fails to consider the real-life circumstances of the parties involved. The researchers explain that the concept of justice has evolved throughout history. Classical thinkers such as Aristotle viewed justice as proportionality, while Plato associated it with social harmony. In the modern era, theories of justice expanded through the work of John Rawls, who introduced the concept of justice as fairness, emphasizing equal opportunities and equitable treatment. Contemporary legal theories have also influenced judicial practice in Indonesia. Progressive law, responsive law, and restorative justice approaches encourage judges to move beyond strict legal formalism and consider humanitarian values, morality, and the social context surrounding a case. According to the researchers, one of the greatest challenges in judicial decision-making is finding the right balance between legal certainty and substantive justice. Excessive reliance on legal formalities may produce rigid outcomes, while excessive flexibility can weaken consistency and predictability in the legal system.
Examining the Structure and Reasoning Behind Court Decisions
The study employed a juridical approach that combined legal analysis, theories of justice, case studies of court decisions, and academic literature reviews. The researchers analyzed key elements of judicial decisions, including the identities of the parties, the chronology of cases, legal considerations, and final rulings. Particular attention was given to judicial reasoning—the process through which judges assess facts, evaluate evidence, and apply legal principles. Judicial reasoning is considered the most critical component of a court decision because it reveals how judges connect legal norms with the facts of a case. Transparent, logical, and comprehensive reasoning forms the foundation of decisions that can be publicly justified and trusted. The study also highlights that judges frequently need to consider non-legal factors such as social values, ethical concerns, and the broader consequences of their decisions for society.
Justice Is More Than Compliance with Legal Rules
One of the study’s most important findings is that justice cannot be evaluated solely by whether a decision complies with legal norms. The researchers identified several key indicators of a high-quality judicial decision:
-Legal certainty that ensures consistency and predictability.
-Social utility that considers practical benefits for society.
-Substantive justice that focuses on fair outcomes.
-Judicial independence from external influence.
-Impartiality and neutrality throughout the legal process.
-Procedural fairness that guarantees due process.
The findings show that effective court decisions emerge when legal certainty, utility, and justice are balanced rather than treated as competing goals. “The realization of justice depends not only on the application of legal norms but also on judges’ ability to understand broader social, moral, and empirical contexts,” the researchers concluded.
Obstacles to Achieving Substantive Justice
Although courts generally succeed in maintaining legal certainty, the study identifies several obstacles that continue to hinder the realization of substantive justice. Among the main challenges are:
-Unequal access to legal resources and representation.
-Limitations in available evidence.
-Social and political pressures that may affect judicial processes.
-Structural biases within legal institutions.
-A continuing preference for formalistic approaches in judicial reasoning.
As a result, some court decisions that are legally valid may still fail to satisfy society’s expectations of fairness. The research also found that decisions integrating legal principles with social realities and theories of justice tend to be more widely accepted by the public because they are perceived as more humane and socially relevant.
Recommendations for Judicial Reform
Based on the findings, the authors recommend strengthening judges’ capacity through training programs that extend beyond legal doctrine to include social analysis, ethics, and empirical approaches. The study also calls for improvements in evidentiary systems to provide judges with more accurate and comprehensive information when making decisions. Greater transparency in judicial reasoning is considered essential for enhancing accountability and public trust. In addition, the researchers emphasize the importance of improving public legal literacy. A better understanding of legal rights and judicial procedures can empower citizens and contribute to a more inclusive legal system. Over the long term, the development of decision-making models that are more responsive to social change is seen as a strategic step toward strengthening the legitimacy of Indonesia’s judiciary.
Author Profile
Sandrik Puji Maulana is an academic and legal researcher at Universitas Terbuka with expertise in constitutional law, legal theory, and judicial systems. This study was conducted in collaboration with Dadang Komara, Gugun Restu Yudhistira, and Khairul Khalil, who are also affiliated with Universitas Terbuka and specialize in legal studies, justice, and judicial governance.
Research Source
Article Title: Realizing Substantive Justice in Court Decisions and its Implementation According to Law Number 48 of 2009 Concerning the Principles of Judicial Power
Authors: Sandrik Puji Maulana, Dadang Komara, Gugun Restu Yudhistira, Khairul Khalil
Journal: International Journal of Integrative Research (IJIR)
Volume and Issue: Volume 4, Issue 4
Year of Publication: 2026
0 Komentar