Article Sidebar

Download
Download Article

Main Article Content

Abstract

The rapid infiltration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into various sectors, including the legal domain, generates a fundamental paradox between technocratic efficiency and substantive justice. This study aims to analyze the threats posed by the mechanistic logic of AI to the epistemic authority of the Constitutional Court (MK) as the guardian of the constitution. Employing a juridical-normative method with a conceptual approach, this research conducts a systematic literature study of legal, legal philosophy, and legal technology sources published between 2017 and 2025, analyzed through hermeneutic interpretation encompassing textual, conceptual, and teleological dimensions. The findings reveal two principal threats: first, AI risks shifting the paradigm of constitutional interpretation away from a dynamic and contextual living constitution approach toward rigid legal formalism anchored in historical data, thereby neglecting moral, social, and contextual dimensions; second, the dominance of algorithmic logic threatens the delegitimization of the Constitutional Court, as algorithmically influenced decisions fail to capture the complexity of societal justice and the humanistic dimension of judicial proceedings. Unlike previous studies that focus on technical aspects or general algorithmic ethics, this research introduces the conceptualization of a dichotomy between mechanistic justice and contextual justice in the specific context of Indonesia’s civil law constitutional adjudication. The study concludes that while AI serves a legitimate role as a technical tool, its logical dominance fundamentally endangers the essence of the Constitutional Court as an institution that resolves disputes through wisdom, conscience, and constitutional values. A strict regulatory framework comprising five key components is therefore proposed to ensure that AI remains a supportive instrument rather than a substitute for constitutional authority.

Keywords

Artificial Intelligence Constitutional Court Judicial Legitimacy Legal Formalism Contextual Justice

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Asyraf, M., & Ramadani, R. (2026). Delegitimization of the Constitutional Court in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: A Critical Review of the Shift from Contextual Justice to Legal Formalism. Golden Ratio of Law and Social Policy Review, 5(2), 389–400. https://doi.org/10.52970/grlspr.v5i2.2081
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Acikgoz, Y., Davison, K. H., Compagnone, M., & Laske, M. (2020). Justice perceptions of artificial intelligence in selection. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 28(4), 399–416. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12306
  2. Aloisi, A., & De Stefano, V. (2023). Between risk mitigation and labour rights enforcement: Assessing the transatlantic race to govern AI-driven decision-making through a comparative lens. European Labour Law Journal, 14(2), 283–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525231167982
  3. Aulia, M. Z. (2025). Hukum progresif dari Satjipto Rahardjo: Riwayat, urgensi, dan relevansi. Undang: Jurnal Hukum, 1(1), 159–185. https://doi.org/10.22437/ujh.1.1.159-185
  4. Bharati, R. (2025). Bias and fairness in AI algorithms: Legal standards and ethical guidelines. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5378211
  5. Binns, R. (2018). Fairness in machine learning: Lessons from political philosophy. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 81, 149–159.
  6. Borgesano, F., De Maio, A., Laghi, P., & Musmanno, R. (2025). Artificial intelligence and justice: A systematic literature review and future research perspectives on Justice 5.0. European Journal of Innovation Management, 28(11), 349–385. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-01-2025-0117
  7. Carlsson, V. (2025). Legal certainty in automated decision-making in welfare services. Social Policy & Administration, 59(1), 108–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.13035
  8. Demirchyan, G. (2025). Algorithmic fairness: Challenges to building an effective regulatory regime. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 8, 1637134. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2025.1637134
  9. Fischer-Abaigar, U., Kern, C., Barda, N., & Kreuter, F. (2024). Bridging the gap: Towards an expanded toolkit for AI-driven decision-making in the public sector. Government Information Quarterly, 41(4), 101976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2024.101976
  10. Fortes, P. R. B. (2020). Paths to digital justice: Judicial robots, algorithmic decision-making, and due process. Asian Journal of Law and Society, 7(3), 453–469. https://doi.org/10.1017/als.2020.12
  11. Greenstein, S. (2022). Preserving the rule of law in the era of artificial intelligence (AI). Artificial Intelligence and Law, 30(3), 291–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-021-09294-4
  12. Grimm, P. W., & Grossman, M. R. (2024). AI in the courts: How worried should we be? Judicature, 108(1), 12–25.
  13. Guo, M. (2021). Internet court’s challenges and future in China. Computer Law & Security Review, 40, 105522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2020.105522
  14. Hartmann, K., & Wenzelburger, G. (2021). Uncertainty, risk and the use of algorithms in policy decisions: A case study on criminal justice in the USA. Policy Sciences, 54(2), 269–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-020-09414-y
  15. Kammerhofer, J. (2025). Kelsen, Hans. In J. Linarelli (Ed.), Elgar concise encyclopedia of legal theory and philosophy. Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5196097
  16. Leal, M., Sakai, R., Shimizuhata, T., & Ng, L. (2024). Artificial intelligence at the bench: Legal and ethical challenges of informing—or misinforming—judicial decision-making through generative AI. Data & Policy, 6, e46. https://doi.org/10.1017/dap.2024.36
  17. Marzuki, P. M. (2019). Penelitian hukum (Revised ed.). Kencana Prenada Media Group.
  18. Mehrabi, N., Morstatter, F., Saxena, N., Lerman, K., & Galstyan, A. (2021). A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning. ACM Computing Surveys, 54(6), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/3457607
  19. Mentovich, A., Prescott, J. J., & Rabinovich-Einy, O. (2023). Legitimacy and online proceedings: Procedural justice, access to justice, and the role of income. Law & Society Review, 57(2), 189–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12653
  20. Panarese, P., Grasso, M. M., & Solinas, C. (2025). Algorithmic bias, fairness, and inclusivity: A multilevel framework for justice-oriented AI. AI & Society. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-025-02451-2
  21. Papagianneas, S., & Junius, N. (2023). Fairness and justice through automation in China’s smart courts. Computer Law & Security Review, 51, 105897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105897
  22. Rudin, C. (2019). Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(5), 206–215. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0048-x
  23. Setiawan, H., Handayani, I. G. A. K. R., Guntur Hamzah, M., & Tegnan, H. (2024). Digitalization of legal transformation on judicial review in the constitutional court. Journal of Human Rights Culture Legal System, 4(2), 263–298. https://doi.org/10.53955/jhcls.v4i2.263
  24. Surden, H. (2019). Artificial intelligence and law: An overview. Georgia State University Law Review, 35(4), 1305–1337.
  25. Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., & Floridi, L. (2017). Why a right to explanation of automated decision-making does not exist in the general data protection regulation. International Data Privacy Law, 7(2), 76–99. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipx005
  26. Yalcin, G., Themeli, E., Stamhuis, E., Philipsen, S., & Puntoni, S. (2023). Perceptions of justice by algorithms. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 31(2), 269–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-022-09312-z
  27. Islami, S. A., Harisi, R., & Fikri, A. M. (2025). Challenges and prospects of integrating artificial intelligence technology in the implementation of Law No. 17 of 2023 on Health: A legal and medical practice perspective. Golden Ratio of Law and Social Policy Review, 5(1), 190–203. https://doi.org/10.52970/grlspr.v5i1.1695
  28. Shadiq, A. (2025). Sinergy of the Judicial Commission and the Supreme Court in an effort to realize professional supervision of judges. Golden Ratio of Law and Social Policy Review, 4(2), 105–111. https://doi.org/10.52970/grlspr.v4i2.1680
  29. Zalnieriute, M., Bennett Moses, L., & Williams, G. (2019). The rule of law and automation of government decision-making. The Modern Law Review, 82(3), 425–455. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12412