Bamsoet Urges Law Enforcement Not to Depend on the Virality of Cases
Bambang Soesatyo (Bamsoet), a member of the Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR RI) and a lecturer in the Doctoral Programme in Legal Studies at Universitas Borobudur, Universitas Jayabaya, and Universitas Pertahanan, regards the phenomenon of ‘no viral no justice’ becoming increasingly common in various legal cases in Indonesia as a strong signal of fundamental problems in the national law enforcement system.
The phenomenon is seen as reflecting public dissatisfaction with legal proceedings that are perceived to move too slowly, and it even seems to take effect only after a case goes viral on social media and draws pressure from public opinion. In fact, legal reform in Indonesia must create a sense of justice rooted in the constitution, local values, and capable of meeting the challenges of the times.
“The phenomenon ‘no viral no justice’ is a very harsh social critique of our legal system. When the public feels their reports do not receive a response, social media becomes an alternative space to seek justice. This situation should be read as a warning to the state that public trust in the legal process is being tested,” Bamsoet said in a written statement on Saturday, 7 March 2026.
He made the remarks while teaching the course ‘National Legal Reform’ in the Doctoral Programme in Law at the Borobudur University campus in Jakarta. Bamsoet notes that the phenomenon ‘no viral no justice’ on the one hand has a positive side because it strengthens public oversight of law enforcement. Social media allows people to monitor state apparatus directly while also pushing for transparency in case handling.
However, on the other hand, dependence on virality also has the potential to create serious problems for the rule of law. If law enforcement is too influenced by pressure from public opinion, the legal process can become something like a ‘trial by social media’ that risks undermining the presumption of innocence and judicial independence.
“Law enforcement must not depend on how viral a case is. The law must operate on facts, evidence, and fair procedures. If justice only arrives after a case goes viral, there will be a perception that the law works according to popularity, not professionalism,” Bamsoet said.
Bamsoet emphasised the importance of using the phenomenon ‘no viral no justice’ as a momentum to undertake comprehensive legal reform, both in structural and cultural and technological aspects. Legal reform must ensure every member of the public’s report is processed quickly, transparently, and accountably without waiting for social media pressure.
Ultimately, legal reform cannot rely solely on legislation. Many legal innovations arise from court interpretations, professional practice, or social movements. This phenomenon is also part of the dynamics of the judiciary’s politicisation, where the judiciary not only resolves disputes but also plays a role in guarding constitutional boundaries and preventing abuses of power.
“Legal reform must ensure every member of the public’s report is processed transparently and can be monitored. In the future, a digital reporting system should be developed that allows the public to know case developments openly,” Bamsoet explained.
Bamsoet added that legal reform must also strengthen the supervisory system over law enforcement officials to prevent discriminatory or biased enforcement practices. In a modern rule-of-law state, justice must be accessible to all citizens regardless of social status, power, or the ability to virally publicise a case.
“A healthy rule of law is a state where people obtain justice without having to virally publicise their case first. Virality should be a tool of transparency, not a prerequisite for obtaining justice,” he concluded.