Realizing Progressive Law through E-Courts in Indonesian Civil Procedure Law: A Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of digital technology has changed various aspects of life, including the judicial system.In Indonesia, e-courts were introduced as part of civil procedure law reform through Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2019.The background of this research is the need to improve the conventional justice system that is slow, bureaucratic and costly.E-courts are expected to increase efficiency, speed up the litigation process, and expand access to justice for the wider community, especially in the digital era and during the COVID-19 pandemic.This study aims to analyze the implementation of e-court in Indonesia's civil procedural law context, evaluate its contribution to improving access to justice, and assess its implementation from the perspective of progressive law that emphasizes substantive justice over procedural justice.In addition, this research also conducts a comparative study with countries such as Singapore, the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States, which have been more advanced in implementing electronic court systems.The research method used is the normative juridical method with a comparative approach and case study.The normative juridical approach analyzes laws and regulations related to e-court in Indonesia.In contrast, the comparative approach examines the implementation of e-court in other countries to learn the best practices.Case studies were conducted by examining court decisions in Indonesia using the e-court system, and evaluating how its implementation affects the accessibility and efficiency of justice.The results showed that the implementation of e-court in Indonesia has successfully accelerated the judicial process and reduced costs for justice seekers, especially during the pandemic.However, there are still obstacles in technological infrastructure gaps, especially in remote areas, and low digital literacy among the public and legal practitioners.Based on the comparative study, Indonesia can adopt various best practices from other countries, such as strengthening infrastructure, increasing technological literacy, and developing an online mediation system.This study concludes that to realize substantive justice by the spirit of progressive law, e-courts must continue to be developed by ensuring inclusivity and responsiveness to the community's needs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".