Freedom from Injustice: When Judicial Decisions Fail to Deliver Justice
Indonesia has reached 81 years of independence. At such an age, we should not only be maturing in building roads, skyscrapers, technology, or economic growth, but also in understanding the most fundamental meaning of independence: that every citizen possesses dignity, rights, and equal access to justice.
However, my journey over the last six years leads me to ask: can someone truly be called free when their rights are recognised by the law, yet they must still struggle for years just to obtain what is legally theirs?
Several months ago, I wrote about my experience in an article titled “Justice on Paper”. I recounted how an employment dispute originating in 2020 led me into a legal journey I never imagined. I followed all existing procedures and regulations. I visited the labour authorities. I underwent mediation. I waited. I took the matter to the Industrial Relations Court. I followed what the legal system commanded. And I won. Yet, it turns out that winning a case is not the same as obtaining justice.
When a Decision Fails to Become Reality
In the legal system, a judge’s decision should carry weight. When a court declares that one party has an obligation towards another, a layperson like myself understands something simple: the party ordered to pay must fulfil that decision.
But reality is not that simple. Because that obligation was not fulfilled voluntarily, I had to enter the next stage: the execution process.
On 25 June 2026, I underwent the ‘aanmaning’ process (a formal warning). This continued on 7 July 2026. Once again, I went to court with one simple hope: that the decision I had fought for over many years would finally be implemented. In civil procedural law, ‘aanmaning’ is a warning from the Chief of the Court to the losing party to comply with the decision voluntarily.
The Supreme Court has explained that legal certainty is not truly achieved merely by the existence of a decision; the rights of the winning party must be realised through the execution of that decision. Based on Article 1<0xA0>196 of the HIR, ‘aanmaning’ is the initial stage before forced execution is carried out if the respondent continues to fail in their obligations.
Even in another industrial relations case in 2026, the Supreme Court reported how two respondents finally fulfilled their obligations after two ‘aanmaning’ sessions. This means the mechanism exists and is intended to turn decisions into reality.
However, in my own experience, after a long journey since 2020, the rights ordered to be given to me have still not been received as of the writing of this article. This is where I began to understand that there is a vast difference between law as text and law as human experience.
From the Courtroom to the Skyscrapers
There is an irony I cannot ignore. PT Timur Properti Investindo, the company involved in my case, is located in the Mega Kuningan business district. According to my documents, the address used is The East Tower, Jl. Dr. Ide Anak Agung Gde Agung Kav. E3.2 No. 1, South Jakarta, 42nd floor—an office building in one of Jakarta’s primary business hubs.
In the legal process I am undergoing, the company can appear through its legal counsel, while I am still waiting for my rights. The contrast is stark. On one side, there are skyscrapers, corporate offices, resources, and the capacity to sustain a long legal battle. On the other side, there is a former worker who must move from one bureaucratic stage to the next for years, merely asking for something that is not a gift or an act of mercy, but a right decided by the court.
The issue, therefore, is not whether one person is rich and another is poor. The issue is the inequality of endurance when facing the law. The party with resources can pay for legal services, maintain the process, and endure a lengthy legal journey. For an ordinary worker, every additional stage means additional costs, time, energy, psychological pressure, and delayed life. I have felt this directly.
Socio-Legal Studies Changing My Perspective
I am currently pursuing a Master of Laws with a concentration in Socio-Legal Studies at the Faculty of Law, University of Indonesia. I entered the lecture hall carrying an experience that I previously understood only as personal injustice. However, the more I study socio-legal studies, the more I realise that what happened to me cannot be analysed solely by asking: “What does the law say?”
A much more important question is: “Does the law actually work within society?”
This is one of the fundamental differences between a legal approach that only looks at norms and a socio-legal approach. A country can have excellent laws. Courts can issue decisions. Procedures can be followed perfectly. But if, after all that, someone still does not receive their rights, we must dare to question the effectiveness of that law within social reality. For me, this case is a very real example of the gap between ‘law in the books’ and ‘law in action.’
On paper, I have the right. On paper, there is a decision. On paper, there is an execution mechanism. But human life does not follow the paper.