People's Sovereignty in The Electronic-Based Government System (SPBE) and One Data Indonesia: A Critical Constitutional Study of Algorithmic Government
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31941/pj.v25i1.7913Keywords:
Algorithmic governance constitutionalism, SPBE, Popular sovereignty, Digital transformation, Legal subjectivityAbstract
In the context of Indonesia’s digital transformation, state governance is increasingly mediated by algorithmic systems embedded in the Sistem Pemerintahan Berbasis Elektronik (SPBE) and Satu Data Indonesia (SDI) policies. While these systems aim to enhance administrative efficiency, transparency, and data interoperability, they raise critical concerns regarding constitutional legitimacy and the erosion of popular sovereignty (kedaulatan rakyat) as codified in Article 1(2) of the 1945 Constitution. This study investigates how algorithmic infrastructures displace constitutional actors, reconfigure legal subjectivity, and create normative gaps in democratic accountability. Employing a qualitative methodology that integrates doctrinal legal analysis and interpretive fieldwork, the research draws on key legal texts, international frameworks, and expert interviews with stakeholders from government, academia, and civil society. Thematic coding of interview transcripts revealed six dominant patterns: displacement of constitutional actors, opacity and accountability, automated legitimacy, jurisdictional blind spot, participatory deficit, and posthuman subjectivity. Findings demonstrate that SPBE and SDI are not neutral policy tools but constitutional events that reallocate evaluative authority and legal recognition to automated systems, often without oversight, redress, or public participation. This study introduces the concept of algorithmic constitutionalism, a normative model that positions digital infrastructures as actors in constitutional discourse. It calls for doctrinal innovation to ensure transparency, participatory safeguards, and judicial scrutiny in algorithmic governance. These insights contribute to both Indonesian constitutional theory and the global conversation on digital sovereignty.
Downloads
References
People's Sovereignty in The Electronic-Based Government System (SPBE) and One Data Indonesia: A Critical Constitutional Study of Algorithmic Government
M. Thoif1*
Sunan Bonang University,Tuban, Indonesia, Email: mokhthoif@usb.ac.id
Tutik Asmorowati2
Sunan Bonang University,Tuban, Indonesia
Article Info Abstract
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Keywords:
Algorithmic governance constitutionalism; SPBE; Popular sovereignty; Digital transformation; Legal subjectivity In the context of Indonesia’s digital transformation, state governance is increasingly mediated by algorithmic systems embedded in the Sistem Pemerintahan Berbasis Elektronik (SPBE) and Satu Data Indonesia (SDI) policies. While these systems aim to enhance administrative efficiency, transparency, and data interoperability, they raise critical concerns regarding constitutional legitimacy and the erosion of popular sovereignty (kedaulatan rakyat) as codified in Article 1(2) of the 1945 Constitution. This study investigates how algorithmic infrastructures displace constitutional actors, reconfigure legal subjectivity, and create normative gaps in democratic accountability. Employing a qualitative methodology that integrates doctrinal legal analysis and interpretive fieldwork, the research draws on key legal texts, international frameworks, and expert interviews with stakeholders from government, academia, and civil society. Thematic coding of interview transcripts revealed six dominant patterns: displacement of constitutional actors, opacity and accountability, automated legitimacy, jurisdictional blind spot, participatory deficit, and posthuman subjectivity. Findings demonstrate that SPBE and SDI are not neutral policy tools but constitutional events that reallocate evaluative authority and legal recognition to automated systems, often without oversight, redress, or public participation. This study introduces the concept of algorithmic constitutionalism, a normative model that positions digital infrastructures as actors in constitutional discourse. It calls for doctrinal innovation to ensure transparency, participatory safeguards, and judicial scrutiny in algorithmic governance. These insights contribute to both Indonesian constitutional theory and the global conversation on digital sovereignty.
I. INTRODUCTION
In the contemporary digital transformation era, state governance is witnessing a paradigm shift from human-centric and procedurally democratic structures to those influenced by algorithmic systems (Bernardus et al., 2024). This transition is most evident in the growing reliance on algorithmic governance, the delegation of evaluative, predictive, and decision-making capacities to automated systems. These technologies are now embedded within public administration and legal systems, claiming increased efficiency, objectivity, and scalability (Gritsenko & Wood, 2020; Latzer & Festic, 2019). However, they simultaneously introduce opaque power mechanisms that are not fully accountable to democratic institutions, thus unsettling the principle of popular sovereignty, which has been the cornerstone of modern constitutional democracies (Hummel et al., 2021; Tretter, 2022).
Indonesia's regulatory response to this trend has been formalized through Presidential Regulation Number 95 of 2018 on the Electronic-Based Government System (EBGS) (Pemerintah Republik Indonesia, 2018) and Presidential Regulation Number 39 Year 2019 on One Data Indonesia (Pemerintah Republik Indonesia, 2019). The Electronic-Based Government System (SPBE) has a strategic function for Indonesia in supporting national digital transformation, improving the quality of public services, strengthening bureaucratic efficiency, and enhancing human resource capacity in facing the digital economy (Soekiman et al., 2025).
SPBE aims to implement an integrated and sustainable electronic-based government system, focusing on interoperability, efficiency, and public service transparency. SDI, on the other hand, establishes a national data governance policy to ensure that data is accurate, up-to-date, and interoperable across central and regional government institutions through mechanisms such as metadata standards, data prioritization, and the use of reference codes and master data (Perpres No. 39/2019, Pasal 1-4). These efforts underscore the rise of algorithmic rationality in bureaucratic decision-making, with limited legal and constitutional evaluation of how such transformations affect the normative foundation of governance.
At the international level, critical frameworks such as algorithmic governmentality (Waldman & Martin, 2022), digital constitutionalism (Wimmer & Moraes, 2022), and technocratic legitimacy (Bertsou & Caramani, 2020) have begun theorizing this shift. These frameworks acknowledge the erosion of traditional forms of legal subjectivity and accountability under digital governance. Yet in Indonesia, judicial and doctrinal responses remain underdeveloped, raising the question of how algorithmically mediated systems such as SPBE and SDI may subvert the constitutional ideals of people’s sovereignty (kedaulatan rakyat), particularly as codified in Article 1(2) of the 1945 Constitution. This study addresses this gap by interrogating the algorithmic reshaping of sovereignty within the evolving digital governance architecture.
The increasing institutionalization of algorithmic systems in governance has not been matched by proportional doctrinal development within constitutional law. In Indonesia, programs like SPBE and SDI function as normative frameworks that regulate public data infrastructures and decision-making channels but do so without reconciling these functions with existing constitutional principles. The SPBE policy, as stated in Perpres No. 95/2018, seeks to integrate information systems across agencies for effective governance but lacks mechanisms for participatory oversight, judicial review, or civic consultation. Similarly, SDI, through Perpres No. 39/2019, operationalizes interoperability and standardization of data without fully incorporating safeguards against data bias, algorithmic opacity, or technocratic centralization. This creates a democratic deficit, as automated decisions often bypass deliberative processes and legal scrutiny (Firdaus et al., 2023; Hartati et al., 2022).
This study proposes a multidisciplinary solution anchored in critical constitutionalism, posthuman legal theory, and digital rights frameworks, aiming to analyze SPBE and SDI not only as technical systems but as juridical architectures with deep implications for sovereignty. By interpreting the 1945 Constitution alongside emerging legal obligations under international frameworks (such as the GDPR, OECD AI Principles, and digital sovereignty declarations), this research constructs a normative model for algorithmic constitutionalism, a lens through which algorithmic infrastructures are treated as actors in constitutional discourse. The study thus offers doctrinal and policy tools to reinstate democratic accountability and reaffirm the principle of sovereignty in digital governance.
The literature across constitutional theory, legal informatics, and political science provides robust frameworks for interrogating algorithmic governance. Critical constitutionalism, as articulated by scholars like Balkin (2013), offers the interpretive flexibility required to address evolving configurations of power. It proposes that constitutional principles should be responsive to socio-technological transformations and should accommodate new forms of governance including those mediated by algorithms.
Simultaneously, algorithmic governmentality a term developed by Waldman & Martin (2022), conceptualizes algorithmic systems not as passive tools but as active actors that predict, regulate, and pre-empt human behavior. These systems shape subjectivity and normativity, creating a technological Leviathan that governs without transparency or appeal. In the context of SPBE and SDI, the establishment of interoperable platforms and reference codes effectively shifts evaluative authority to automated systems that are difficult to interrogate from a constitutional perspective as it is stated in Perpres No. 39/2019 (Pemerintah Republik Indonesia, 2019).
Moreover, posthuman legal theory (Grear, 2020; Braidotti, 2019) disrupts the anthropocentric assumptions of constitutional frameworks, asserting that algorithms, data infrastructures, and digital platforms should be viewed as agents within legal assemblages. In this model, legal subjectivity is not exclusively human but shared with technological artifacts that co-produce social and legal realities. Applied to the Indonesian context, this theory elucidates how systems like SPBE and SDI embody a posthuman legal order that demands new constitutional interpretations and governance ethics.
While existing literature recognizes the expanding role of data and automation in governance, it rarely addresses the constitutional restructuring of power that accompanies such shifts. Most discussions on SDI and SPBE are confined to technocratic evaluations focusing on efficiency, digital readiness, or cybersecurity (Ssenyonga, 2021) and fail to critically analyze how these systems affect democratic control, public accountability, and citizen agency. The constitutional silence surrounding these systems is particularly problematic given the top-down configuration of the SPBE ecosystem, in which institutions such as the Dewan Pengarah and Walidata operate without formal public participation mechanisms as it is stated in Perpres No. 95/2018 (Pemerintah Republik Indonesia, 2018), and Pasal 14–16; Perpres No. 39/2019 (Pemerintah Republik Indonesia, 2019).
Moreover, regulatory instruments such as the EU’s GDPR and the OECD’s AI Principles begin to acknowledge the normative risks of automated governance including bias, opacity, and data exploitation—but they do not comprehensively address the foundational impact on sovereignty and legal legitimacy (Menéndez, 2021; Xu, 2024). In Indonesia, neither the Mahkamah Konstitusi (Constitutional Court) nor the national legislation (Law on Electronic Information and Transactions or UU ITE) has incorporated algorithmic systems as subjects of constitutional inquiry. This gap has profound implications, as it leaves the redistribution of evaluative authority unchecked and effectively displaces citizens as the primary holders of democratic power.
Lastly, while interdisciplinary scholars argue for data justice and Indigenous data sovereignty (Carroll et al., 2020; Gopalani et al., 2021), such frameworks are yet to be translated into constitutional doctrines or administrative laws in Indonesia. The absence of legal codification for algorithmic accountability or participatory data governance mechanisms exposes a lacuna in the legal architecture. This study responds to that void by proposing a constitutional model that re-centers sovereignty within digitally mediated governance.
The main objective of this research is to analyze how the implementation of algorithmic governance systems, specifically through Indonesia’s SPBE and SDI, reconfigures the constitutional principle of popular sovereignty. It seeks to determine whether and how these systems undermine or transform the foundational legal doctrine of people's sovereignty (kedaulatan rakyat) as articulated in the UUD 1945, by examining the procedural, structural, and doctrinal shifts introduced by algorithmic infrastructures.
The novelty of this study lies in its introduction of the concept of "algorithmic constitutionalism" a framework that synthesizes critical constitutional thought, algorithmic governmentality, and posthuman legal theory. Unlike existing analyses that treat SPBE and SDI as policy tools, this study treats them as constitutional events that reallocate power, subjectivity, and legitimacy. It also contributes a doctrinal roadmap for integrating algorithmic systems into the Indonesian constitutional framework, thereby addressing the pressing need for normative and judicial adaptation in the digital era. This work is thus positioned at the intersection of constitutional law, legal theory, and digital governance, offering a scholarly intervention with both national relevance and global resonance.
2. RESEARCH METHODS
This qualitative study adopts a dual-track methodology combining doctrinal legal analysis and interpretive field inquiry to explore how Indonesia’s SPBE and SDI policies affect the constitutional principle of people’s sovereignty. Core materials include Perpres No. 95/2018, Perpres No. 39/2019, and Article 1(2) of the 1945 Constitution, supplemented by statutory instruments, judicial decisions, and international frameworks like the GDPR and OECD AI Principles. The research follows five stages: legal document analysis, normative interpretation, purposive participant selection, expert interviews, and synthesis into a framework of algorithmic constitutionalism. This design follows Creswell’s (2018) emphasis on contextual interpretation and Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña’s (2014) model of qualitative rigor through data condensation and display.
Data were collected through document analysis and semi-structured interviews with legal scholars, government officials, and civil society actors. Interview transcripts and legal texts were thematically coded, following the pattern coding techniques proposed by Miles et al. (2014). Analytical themes such as legal subjectivity, algorithmic opacity, and sovereignty displacement were identified and cross-compared between doctrinal texts and field data. The findings are presented as analytical narratives supported by quotations and legal references, offering both empirical nuance and normative critique. This approach allows for a theoretically informed and contextually grounded examination of algorithmic governance as a constitutional phenomenon.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Documentary Evidence of Algorithmic Restructuring
The analysis of key legal instruments, Perpres No. 95/2018 (SPBE) and Perpres No. 39/2019 (SDI) reveals that algorithmic systems do not merely support governance; they actively reorganize it. These documents institute a framework where evaluative power and administrative discretion are transferred to digital platforms. For example, interoperability mandates, metadata standardization, and hierarchical reference codes reassign state legitimacy to technical protocols rather than democratic deliberation. This creates an epistemological shift in the source of authority. One official from Kominfo highlighted: “All policy instructions now go through SPBE dashboards. Ministers are informed by system-generated evaluations, not public reports.” This reflects the theme of centralized decision-making, signifying a form of algorithmic authority that operates autonomously from civic influence.
Within the SDI framework, data interoperability is enforced through master reference codes and metadata structures (Pasal 3–10), effectively turning citizen records into governance tokens. These systems sort, authorize, or silence data subjects based on automated logic. The field findings consistently point toward an infrastructural realignment of power that reconfigures constitutional meaning, shifting it away from the normative principles of participatory governance to automated regulation.
The Displacement of Popular Sovereignty
Interview data reveals an undercurrent of constitutional erosion associated with the institutionalization of algorithmic systems. Several experts expressed concern that the state’s growing reliance on data infrastructures has blurred the locus of democratic legitimacy. A constitutional law scholar stated: “It is no longer clear whether the rakyat has any role in governance when everything is standardized by metadata and automated processes.” This indicates the erosion of participatory rights, a core category in this study's thematic analysis.
Algorithmic governance, while designed for efficiency, introduces layers of abstraction that elude traditional legal accountability. This opacity is reflected in the remarks of a government oversight auditor: “I cannot even tell you what algorithm determines which public report gets escalated to policy action.” This exemplifies the theme of opacity and accountability—a condition where automation outpaces public transparency and disrupts normative checks on executive discretion.
To illustrate the qualitative findings underpinning the constitutional implications of SPBE and SDI, the table below synthesizes the key themes, codes, and representative interview excerpts generated through the thematic analysis:
Table 1. Thematic Categories, Codes, and Direct Excerpts from Expert Interviews
Theme Code Excerpt
Algorithmic Authority centralized decision-making All policy instructions now go through SPBE dashboards. Ministers are informed by system-generated evaluations, not public reports. (Senior Kominfo Official)
Sovereignty Displacement erosion of participatory rights It is no longer clear whether the rakyat has any role in governance when everything is standardized by metadata and automated processes. (Constitutional Law Scholar)
Opacity and Accountability lack of transparency I cannot even tell you what algorithm determines which public report gets escalated to policy action. (Government Oversight Auditor)
Legal Subjectivity human-data dualism Once you become a dataset, your identity as a citizen becomes almost secondary in legal processes. (Digital Rights Advocate)
Participatory Deficit absence of challenge mechanisms There is no complaint system to question algorithmic decisions made in SDI workflows. (Civil Society Organization Representative)
Interview Insights – Constitutional Displacement
The thematic code "displacement of constitutional actors" emerged consistently across multiple interviews. Experts from both civil society and academia voiced concern that the operational centrality of algorithmic systems in SPBE and SDI has subtly dislodged the constitutional role of the people (rakyat). One senior academic remarked, "We have moved from kedaulatan rakyat to kedaulatan system, algorithmic sovereignty that is technically unaccountable.” This powerful phrase encapsulates how the normative source of state power enshrined in Article 1(2) of the 1945 Constitution has been symbolically and operationally rechanneled through automated infrastructures.
Thematic analysis of expert interviews revealed six dominant categories: Displacement of Constitutional Actors, Opacity and Accountability, Automated Legitimacy, Jurisdictional Blind Spot, Participatory Deficit, and Posthuman Subjectivity. These themes were derived through iterative coding of transcribed interviews using NVivo, supported by Creswell’s (2014) layered interpretation method and Miles et al.’s (2014) thematic condensation approach.
Figure 1. Frequency of Emergent Thematic Codes Identified from Expert Interviews
This displacement is not only symbolic but institutional. For example, in the SPBE architecture, policy execution is centralized through digital coordination dashboards, where officials receive system-generated evaluations and rankings. Participants from Kominfo confirmed that “SPBE determines compliance metrics before any democratic discussion even occurs.” Such practices reduce room for public input and legitimize decision-making outside deliberative institutions, undermining the sovereignty principle through technical preemption. To illustrate the empirical richness of each theme, Table 1 presents exemplary excerpts from participants, showcasing how abstract categories like algorithmic authority and legal subjectivity are grounded in real institutional experiences and perceptions.
In addition to structured coding and quotes, a word cloud was generated to visualize the most frequently occurring terms in the interview corpus, emphasizing the lexical density of constitutional disruption in participants’ language.
Figure 2. Word cloud
Expert Reflections on Sovereignty and Data Governance
Interviewees revealed significant tension between sovereign legitimacy and technocratic efficiency. Experts from digital rights NGOs consistently warned that the “standardization logic” of SDI through metadata rules and master data codes, enables what one termed a "silent privatization of judgment". Decision-making becomes a product of predefined algorithmic criteria rather than public deliberation or judicial interpretation. A member of Wali Data admitted, “Once the algorithm validates the metadata, the system acts; there is no constitutional pause for contestation.” This excerpt illustrates the theme automated legitimacy, where procedural rights are implicitly bypassed.
Moreover, sovereignty is functionally fragmented. While Indonesia’s Constitution centralizes authority in the people, SDI disperses control across interoperable infrastructures maintained by administrative units and platform logic. One civil servant reflected: “We no longer ask whether this is lawful; we ask whether this complies with the system.” This transition from legal reasoning to compliance logic embodies the bureaucratic capture by data systems, a subtheme tied to technocratic rationality and algorithmic governance.
Legal Blind Spots in SPBE and SDI Implementation
Despite the vast administrative overhaul facilitated by SPBE and SDI, there exists a glaring doctrinal void in Indonesian constitutional jurisprudence. Interviews revealed that legal practitioners often lack tools to scrutinize the normative impact of algorithmic systems. One judge from a regional constitutional oversight body admitted, “We do not yet have a judicial vocabulary for interrogating code or systems governance. It’s invisible law.” This reflects a broader issue: jurisprudential underdevelopment in recognizing algorithms as constitutional actors.
Additionally, the lack of procedural safeguards within SPBE and SDI, particularly regarding data bias, exclusion, and auditability compounds this blind spot. Interviewees noted the absence of formal mechanisms for redressing algorithmic decisions. As one legal scholar observed, “These systems can deny access to services without triggering any form of legal notice or review.” This exposes a gap in procedural justice, which is normatively unacceptable under the constitutional commitment to due process.
Participatory Deficit and Doctrinal Silence
The participatory void a dominant theme in the interview data is further entrenched by the absence of civic engagement protocols within SPBE and SDI implementation. A civil society advocate noted, “No community has been consulted in the formulation of metadata standards, yet these directly affect how their identity is processed.” The lack of public deliberation in system design contradicts the participatory ethos of democratic constitutionalism. This doctrinal silence is not merely practical but systemic. While Indonesia’s legal framework emphasizes sovereignty and participation, SPBE and SDI have evolved without constitutional jurisprudence keeping pace. As one constitutional scholar reflected, “If these infrastructures were human actors, they would be unconstitutional; but because they are digital, they’re invisible to the law.” This insight captures the legal paradox: digital infrastructures evade constitutional visibility, even as they wield substantive normative power.
Algorithmic Actors and Legal Assemblages
Drawing from posthuman legal theory, this block interprets algorithmic systems as legal assemblages, entities that perform functions of legal consequence. SPBE dashboards, metadata protocols, and master data codes do not merely support law; they perform legal decisions in practice. One participant captured this dynamic aptly: “The algorithm decides whose data is valid. That’s not administration it’s adjudication.”
Figure 3. Algorithmic Legal Agency and Accountability
This reframing challenges the anthropocentric assumption that only human officials are bearers of legal agency. The analysis reveals that algorithmic infrastructures have become de facto constitutional actors, reshaping subjectivity, access, and rights without going through traditional legal channels. As such, a posthuman constitutional theory is necessary to bring these digital actors into the realm of legal accountability.
Posthuman Subjectivity in Practice
The implementation of SDI, in particular, redefines legal subjectivity by transforming individuals into data doubles, statistical profiles sorted and regulated by algorithmic parameters. One digital rights expert warned: “People are becoming metadata first, citizens second.” This shift undermines the anthropocentric foundations of legal rights, where human agency and self-determination are core. Interviews emphasized that automated personhood produces both inclusion and exclusion without recognition. A marginalized group activist shared, “Our community’s data doesn’t match the national reference code. So we don’t exist to the system.” This reflects the danger of data-driven disenfranchisement, where system errors or omissions erase personhood from legal recognition.
Toward a Normative Model of Algorithmic Constitutionalism
In response to these empirical and normative crises, the study proposes a new theoretical model: algorithmic constitutionalism. This model acknowledges algorithmic infrastructures as participants in constitutional life and demands their incorporation into constitutional scrutiny and legal doctrine. Several interviewees voiced support for such innovation. One legal reform expert remarked, “We need a new constitutional article or jurisprudential doctrine—that treats code as a public actor.” Algorithmic constitutionalism bridges legal theory with digital transformation, offering a normative foundation that integrates transparency, accountability, and participatory oversight into the design and operation of digital governance systems. Rather than treating SPBE and SDI as mere technical tools, this model positions them as constitutional events, institutional innovations that demand ethical evaluation, legal oversight, and doctrinal innovation.
4. CONCLUSION
This study has demonstrated that algorithmic governance systems such as SPBE (Perpres No. 95/2018) and Satu Data Indonesia (SDI; Perpres No. 39/2019) do not merely support public administration—they fundamentally reshape the constitutional order. Through a combination of doctrinal analysis and expert interview data, it was revealed that these systems introduce new normative infrastructures that displace constitutional actors, redistribute evaluative authority, and erode the principle of kedaulatan rakyat (people’s sovereignty) as enshrined in Article 1(2) of the 1945 Constitution. Interview participants identified key challenges including opacity, lack of accountability, algorithmic legitimacy, and participatory deficit. Thematic analysis underscored six dominant codes, displacement of constitutional actors, opacity and accountability, automated legitimacy, jurisdictional blind spot, participatory deficit, and posthuman subjectivity all pointing to a techno-legal reconfiguration of sovereign power.
Notably, interview data and doctrinal texts converged in illustrating how legal subjectivity is being redefined under digital conditions. Citizens are increasingly treated as “data doubles,” with identity, agency, and entitlements mediated through metadata validation and automated decision-making. Legal instruments such as SPBE dashboards and master data codes function not only as administrative tools but as adjudicatory mechanisms. Despite their profound normative consequences, these infrastructures remain invisible to constitutional jurisprudence. The absence of participatory protocols, judicial oversight, and contestability mechanisms reveals a systemic legal blind spot that undermines both procedural and substantive aspects of democratic governance.
This research advances the field of constitutional law by introducing the concept of algorithmic constitutionalism, a theoretical framework that positions algorithmic infrastructures as participants in constitutional life. Drawing on critical constitutionalism, posthuman legal theory, and digital constitutionalism, the study conceptualizes systems like SPBE and SDI not as neutral technological innovations, but as constitutional events that must be subjected to normative evaluation. This approach offers an original contribution by bridging legal theory with digital governance, responding to a gap in both Indonesian constitutional doctrine and broader global discussions on digital sovereignty and algorithmic accountability.
Empirically, the study provides one of the first grounded analyses of how digital governance practices in Indonesia, operationalized through metadata standards, interoperable platforms, and SPBE dashboards transform foundational constitutional principles. It captures expert reflections from legal scholars, civil servants, and civil society actors, offering nuanced evidence of how sovereignty is silently yet significantly restructured. The analysis contributes to a growing international discourse that calls for constitutional innovations capable of responding to algorithmic governance, thereby situating Indonesian developments within a global context of techno-legal transformation.
Given the doctrinal novelty and systemic stakes of algorithmic constitutionalism, future research should explore pathways for its institutionalization within Indonesia’s legal system. Comparative studies with jurisdictions that have integrated algorithmic oversight—such as the European Union’s evolving AI regulatory frameworks—can inform the development of domestic jurisprudence. Particular attention should be given to mechanisms for judicial review of automated decisions, constitutional amendments addressing digital governance, and models of participatory algorithm design that include marginalized communities. Legal anthropology could also enhance our understanding of how citizens experience algorithmic authority in their daily encounters with the state.
Moreover, interdisciplinary research involving data scientists, legal scholars, and civic technologists is needed to translate normative insights into actionable regulatory frameworks. As algorithmic systems continue to evolve, so too must the legal tools designed to govern them. The model of algorithmic constitutionalism proposed here provides a critical foundation, but further empirical validation and theoretical refinement are necessary to ensure that sovereignty, rights, and democratic participation remain robust in the digital age.
References
Bernardus, D., Arisa, F., Sufa, S. A., & Oka, D. (2024). Supporting Start-ups in Indonesia : Examining Government Policies , Incubator Business , and Sustainable Structure for Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Capital. 5(1), 236–259.
Bertsou, E., & Caramani, D. (2020). People Haven’t Had Enough of Experts: Technocratic Attitudes Among Citizens in Nine European Democracies. American Journal of Political Science, 66(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12554
Büschgens, T., Bausch, A., & Balkin, D. B. (2013). Organizational Culture and Innovation: A Meta‐Analytic Review. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(4), 763–781. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12021
Carroll, S. R., Garba, I., Figueroa-Rodríguez, O. L., Holbrook, J., Lovett, R., Materechera, S. A., Parsons, M. A., Raseroka, K., Rodriguez-Lonebear, D., Rowe, R., Sara, R., Walker, J., Anderson, J., & Hudson, M. (2020). The CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance. Data Science Journal, 19. https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2020-043
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th ed.). In Research Defign: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed M ethods Approaches. Sage Publications.
Firdaus, R. A., Mahardhani, A. J., & Sunarto, S. (2023). Local Government Readiness in the Era of Society 5.0. International Journal of Social Science, 3(1), 97–102. https://doi.org/10.53625/ijss.v3i1.6638
Gilani, S. (2020). Bionic Bodies, Posthuman Violence and the Disembodied Criminal Subject. Law and Critique, 32(2), 171–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10978-020-09284-6
Gopalani, S. V, Janitz, A. E., Burkhart, M., Campbell, J. E., Martinez, S. A., White, A. H., Chen, S., Anderson, A., Pharr, S. F., Patrick, S., & Comiford, A. L. (2021). Development and Implementation of an HPV Vaccination Survey for American Indians in Cherokee Nation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(17), 9239. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18179239
Gritsenko, D., & Wood, M. (2020). Algorithmic Governance: A Modes of Governance Approach. Regulation & Governance, 16(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12367
Hartati, S., Karyono, H., & Sabowo, H. K. (2022). Implementation of the Law on Information and Electronic Transactions and Pancasila Law Enforcement Related to Cybercrimes in Indonesia. International Journal of Educational Research & Social Sciences, 3(1), 425–436. https://doi.org/10.51601/ijersc.v3i1.290
Hummel, P., Braun, M., Tretter, M., & Dabrock, P. (2021). Data Sovereignty: A Review. Big Data & Society, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951720982012
Latzer, M., & Festic, N. (2019). A Guideline for Understanding and Measuring Algorithmic Governance in Everyday Life. Internet Policy Review, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.2.1415
Menéndez, I. V. (2021). Amending by Interpreting: The Constitutional Jurisdiction as Amendment Power. International Journal of Human Rights and Constitutional Studies, 8(1/2), 65. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijhrcs.2021.113757
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebooks (Helen Salmon, Ed.; 3rd ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd.
Pemerintah Republik Indonesia. (2018). Peraturan Presiden Republik Indonesia Nomor 95 Tahun 2018 Tentang Sistem Pemerintahan Berbasis Elektronik. 1, 1–3.
Pemerintah Republik Indonesia. (2019). Peraturan Presiden Republik Indonesia No 39 Tahun 2019 tentang Satu Data Indonesia. Perpres NOMOR 39 TAHUN 2OL9 Tentang Satu Data, 004185, 1–35. https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Home/Details/108813/perpres-no-39-tahun-2019
Ramani, S., Könings, K. D., Ginsburg, S., & van der Vleuten, C. P. (2019). Feedback Redefined: Principles and Practice. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 34(5), 744–749. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-04874-2
Soekiman, S., Brumadyadisty, G., Firdaus, M. Y., Suprayitno, D., & Lisdiantini, N. (2025). Facing Digital Transformation: The Role of the Prakerja Program in Enhancing Indonesian Workforce Competencies. Pena Justisia, 24(1), 5963–5991.
Ssenyonga, M. (2021). Imperatives for Post COVID-19 Recovery of Indonesia’s Education, Labor, and SME Sectors. Cogent Economics & Finance. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2021.1911439
Tretter, M. (2022). Sovereignty in the Digital and Contact Tracing Apps. Digital Society, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44206-022-00030-2
Waldman, A. E., & Martin, K. (2022). Governing Algorithmic Decisions: The Role of Decision Importance and Governance on Perceived Legitimacy of Algorithmic Decisions. Big Data & Society, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517221100449
Wimmer, M., & Moraes, T. G. (2022). Quantum Computing, Digital Constitutionalism, and the Right to Encryption: Perspectives From Brazil. Digital Society, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44206-022-00012-4
Xu, J. (2024). Supervision and Guarantee of Constitutional Normativity in a Legal System Aimed at Legal Regulation. Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.2478/amns-2024-0560
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Mokh. Thoif, Tutik Asmorowati, Muhammad Zaki Tamami
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
