JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE IN THE AGE OF ONLINE CIVIL COURTS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF INDONESIA AND HUNGARY
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study compares the experience of Indonesia and Hungary to examine how the independence of judicial is reformed in the development of online civil courts. The research aims to analyze how the principles of constitutional independence are translated into digital justice reform and how technological innovations influence the balance between independence, accountability and transparency. In the methodology of this study, the analysis of constitutional provisions, legislative frameworks, administrative structures and digital judicial policy in both countries uses a doctrinal legal method. The main sources of law are combined with doctrinal writings on the independence of the judiciary, the judicial trilemma, and digital civil procedure to identify institutional and technological factors influencing the autonomy of the judiciary. The findings indicate that Indonesia and Hungary are adopting different reform pathways. Indonesia follows an “innovation first model” where digital systems, such as e-Court, were introduced ahead of comprehensive regulatory adjustments, while Hungary adopted a “regulatory first model” through the codification of the Civil Procedure Code (2016) and the E-Government Act (2015) before the full implementation of digitalization. Despite these differences, both countries face similar challenges in harmonising digital systems with the guarantees of independence of the Constitution. In Indonesia, gaps in civil procedural law and central control of digital platforms raise concerns about administrative pressure through technical mechanisms. Although Hungary's regulatory framework is comprehensive, the centralization of the administrative authority within the National Court of Justice creates a risk of management influence on judges. Overall, the study concludes that online civil courts can only support judicial independence if their technical design, organizational structure and constitutional principles work together.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Asrun, Andi Muhammad, and Zainal Arifin Hossein, “Evolution of Indonesian Judiciary: From Struggle of Independence to Crisis of Accountability,” Russian Law Journal 11, no. 2 (2023), https://doi.org/10.52783/rlj.v11i2.886.
Bell, John, “Judicial Cultures and Judicial Independence,” Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 4 (2001): 47–60, https://doi.org/10.5235/152888712802761798.
Butt, Simon, “Constitutional Court Decisions on the Judicial Independence of Other Indonesian Courts,” Constitutional Review 9, no. 2 (2023): 247, https://doi.org/10.31078/consrev922.
Chand, Daniel E., “Protecting Agency Judges in an Age of Politicization: Evaluating Judicial Independence and Decisional Confidence in Administrative Adjudications,” The American Review of Public Administration 49, no. 4 (2019): 395–410, https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074019829608.
Chisholm, Neil, “The Faces of Judicial Independence: Democratic versus Bureaucratic Accountability in Judicial Selection, Training, and Promotion in South Korea and Taiwan,” American Journal of Comparative Law 62, no. 4 (2014): 893–950, https://doi.org/10.5131/AJCL.2014.0027.
CMS International Law Firm, “Digital Litigation in Hungary”, https://cms.law/content/versionview/627141/5/eng-GB/site_access/dp_eng, accessed 10 March 2026.
Court of Justice of the European Union, “Press Release No 99/24”, https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2024-06/cp240099en.pdf, accessed on 8 March 2026.
Courts of Hungary, “About the National Office for the Judiciary”, https://birosag.hu/en/en/en/about-us/about-the-noj, accessed 9 March 2026.
Courts of Hungary, “Electronic Procedure”, https://birosag.hu/en/electronic-procedures, accessed 10 March 2026.
Courts of Hungary, “Hungarian Judicial System”, https://birosag.hu/en/hungarian-judicial-system, accessed 10 March 2026.
Courts of Hungary, “National Office for the Judiciary”, https://birosag.hu/en/national-office-judiciary, accessed 10 March 2026.
Crouch, Melissa, “The Judicial Reform Landscape in Indonesia: Innovation, Specialisation and the Legacy of Dan S. Lev,” in The Politics of Court Reform, 1st ed., ed. Melissa Crouch (Cambridge University Press, 2019), 1–28, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108636131.001.
Dunoff, Jeffrey & Mark Pollack, The Judicial Trilemma, 111 AJIL 225 (2017); see Mauricio Guim, “The Judicial Trilemma Visits Latin American Judicial Politics,” AJIL Unbound 111 (2017): 354–58, https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2017.80, pg. 354.
Engstrom, David Freeman. “Digital Civil Procedure.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 169, no. 2243 (2021): 2258.
European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission). “Hungary: Opinion on the amendments to the Act on the organisation and administration of the Courts and the Act on the legal status and remuneration of judges adopted by the Hungarian parliament in December 2020.” CDL AD(2021)036 e. Adopted at the 128th Plenary Session, Venice/online, 15–16 October 2021. Council of Europe. https://www.coe.int/en/web/venice-commission/-/cdl-ad-2021-036-e.
European Commission, “Commission considers that Hungary's judicial reform addressed deficiencies in judicial independence, but maintains measures on budget conditionality”, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/document/print/et/ip_23_6465/IP_23_6465_EN.pdf, accessed 10 March 2026.
European Commission, “Commission Staff Working Document: 2020 Rule of Law Report: Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Hungary”, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020SC0316, accessed on 10 March 2026.
European Commission, 2025 Rule of Law Report: Country Chapter on Hungary, https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/524bd8d4-33ba-4802-891f-d8959831ed5a_en?filename=2025+Rule+of+Law+Report+-+Country+Chapter+Hungary.pdf, accessed 8 March 2026.
Fleck, Zoltán, “Changes of the Judicial Structure in Hungary – Understanding the New Authoritarianism,” Osteuropa Recht 64, no. 4 (2018): 583–99, https://doi.org/10.5771/0030-6444-2018-4-583.
Garoupa, Nuno, and Tom Ginsburg, “Guarding the Guardians: Judicial Councils and Judicial Independence,” American Journal of Comparative Law 57, no. 1 (2009): 103–34, https://doi.org/10.5131/ajcl.2008.0004.
Gisbert, Rafael Bustos, “Judicial Independence in European Constitutional Law,” European Constitutional Law Review 18, no. 4 (2022): 591–620, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019622000347.
Guim, Op.cit., pg. 354; see also Jennifer Hillman, “Independence at the Top of the Triangle: Best Resolution of the Judicial Trilemma?,” AJIL Unbound 111 (2017): 364–68, https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2017.83.
Hartung, Dirk, Florian Brunnader, et al. The Future of Digital Justice (The Netherlands: Boston Consulting Group, 2022). https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/4631.
Hayo, Bernd, and Stefan Voigt, “Mapping Constitutionally Safeguarded Judicial Independence—A Global Survey,” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 11, no. 1 (2014): 159–95, https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12038.
HiiL. Use of Digital Technologies in Judicial Reform and Access to Justice Cooperation. 2021. https://www.hiil.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/HiiL-Use-of-digital-technologies-in-judicial-reform-and-access-to-justice-cooperation.pdf.
Hungarian Helsinki Committee and Transparency International Hungary, “A Sauron’s Eye in the Hungarian Justice System”, https://helsinki.hu/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/A_Saurons_eye_in_the_Hungarian_Justice_System_20240531.pdf, accessed 10 March 2026.
Joshua, Boston, et al., “Political Competition and Judicial Independence: How Courts Fill the Void When Legislatures Are Ineffective,” Journal of Law and Courts 12, no. 1 (2024): 165–84, https://doi.org/10.1017/jlc.2023.16.
Keller, Helen, and Severin Meier, “Independence and Impartiality in The Judicial Trilemma,” AJIL Unbound 111 (2017): 344–48, https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2017.85.
Kovács, Kriszta, and Kim Lane Scheppele, “The Fragility of an Independent Judiciary: Lessons from Hungary and Poland—and the European Union,” Communist and Post-Communist Studies 51, no. 3 (2018): 189–200, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postcomstud.2018.07.005.
Latifiani, Dian, et al., “Reconstruction of E-Court Legal Culture in Civil Law Enforcement,” Journal of Indonesian Legal Studies 7, no. 2 (2022): 441–48, https://doi.org/10.15294/jils.v7i2.59993.
Marchetti, Don Marco, "Digital Justice and Human Security: Evaluating E-Court Reforms in Italy and Indonesia", Jurnal Paradigma Hukum Pembangunan 11, no. 1 (2026): 1-42.
Marques, Filipe, and Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque, eds., Rule of Law in Europe (Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2024), https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-61265-7.
Mertokusumo, Sudikno, Hukum Acara Perdata Indonesia, (Yogyakarta: Liberty, 2006).
Mubdi, Umar, 2025, "New Round of Civil Justice Reform", https://www.hukumonline.com/berita/a/babak-baru-reformasi-peradilan-perdata-lt6809d75d3bbe4/, accessed on 15 November 2025.
Nagy and Tóth, "E-Justice in Hungary with Special Regard to Administrative-Court Cases", European Review of Digital Administration & Law (ERDAL), Vol. 5, No. 1 (2024), 185-191.
Ng, Gar Yein, “The Transfer of Judges and Judicial Independence,” Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, ahead of print, September 8, 2025, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40803-025-00262-7.
Nóra, Bán-Forgács, "Judicial Independence in Hungary: A Theoretical Framework (MTA Law Working Papers, No. 2024/18)". MTA Centre for Social Sciences, Institute for Legal Studies., https://jog.tk.elte.hu/en/mtalwp/judicial-independence-in-hungary-a-theoretical-framework?download=pdf , accessed 10 March 2026.
Osztovits, Andras, “Hungarian Civil Procedure Law’s Response to the Covid Challenge,” Wroclaw Review of Law, Administration & Economics 12, no. 2 (2022): 12–28, https://doi.org/10.2478/wrlae-2023-0019.
Phiri, Christopher, “Judicial Independence Through Accountability: Why and How to Remove Judges in Zambia,” Journal of African Law 69, no. 2 (2025): 213–32, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021855325000026.
Putra, Dedi, “A Modern Judicial System in Indonesia: Legal Breakthrough of E-Court and E-Legal Proceeding,” Jurnal Hukum Dan Peradilan 9, no. 2 (2020): 275, https://doi.org/10.25216/jhp.9.2.2020.275-297.
Rositawati, Dian, 2019, 'Judicial governance in Indonesia : Judicial independence under the One Roof System', Doctor of Laws, Tilburg University., https://research.tilburguniversity.edu/en/publications/3cdbf6bf-2616-46f3ab2d-c6e4516c6969, accessed 10 March 2026.
Singhvi, A. M., “Judicial Independence and Accountability—Who Should Adorn the Bench?,” Indian Journal of Public Administration 45, no. 3 (1999): 399–403, https://doi.org/10.1177/0019556119990309; Bustos Gisbert, “Judicial Independence in European Constitutional Law.”, pg. 604-606.
Stevens, R, “A Loss of Innocence? Judicial Independence and the Separation of Powers,” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 19, no. 3 (1999): 365–402, https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/19.3.365; see Bustos Gisbert, “Judicial Independence in European Constitutional Law.”, pg. 607.
Susskind, Richard, Online Courts and the Future of Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019).
Sutiyoso, Bambang, “Penguatan Peran Komisi Yudisial dalam Penegakan Hukum di Indonesia,” Jurnal Hukum Ius Quia Iustum 18, no. 2 (2011): 266–84, https://doi.org/10.20885/iustum.vol18.iss2.art7.
Tóth, Dávid, and Nárcisz Projics, “The Digitalization of the Hungarian Justice System,” Gubernaculum et Administratio 1(25) (2022): 229–48, https://doi.org/10.16926/gea.2022.01.15.
Transparency International Hungary. “Justice Sector (Igazságszolgáltatás).” https://transparency.hu/en/kozszektor/igazsagszolgaltatas/, accessed 10 March 2026.
Viganò, Francesco, “Protecting Judicial Independence by Strengthening Public Confidence in the Judiciary”, in Marques and Pinto De Albuquerque, Rule of Law in Europe., pg. 51-53.