The Ala Indonesian Meaning of Law
The law is essential for humans’ life at the present time. Every activity performed by men has always been inseparable from the law. When we mentioned the word “law”, the paradigm moulded as society’s understanding on the meaning of law intreprets itself as the compilation of rules altogether or norms existing in a particular collective life. Consequently, the meaning of law was then seen as normative contents, and such is because it concludes fairly on what is appropriate to be done, on what is constrained or ought to be done, and determines on how to carry out liabilities in subject to these norms. This aforesaid means of definition is what makes law to presumably personify as “Man is for Law”, in which such is a condition where man must follow whatever the law says, even when it depletes the value of the justice within. This symptom is a symptom that is, according to Writer’s objective, is suffered by Indonesia. According to Satjipto Rahardjo, the ideas of law (the meaning of law) should have been drawn back to its fundamental philosophy, and that is that the “Law is for Man”. Pursuant to this philosophy, man shall become the determiner as well as the polar orientation of law. What will be discussed in this writing is the evolution of the meanings of law, so that we can also see the implications these meanings may imply to a state, Indonesia in particular. Before we immense ourselves any further into this discussion, let us first behold a glimpse of a few developments that has been occurring to the meaning of law.
From its history, the meaning of law has been developed over years. Various meanings of law have changed from time to time, and it is not always static on the normative level. Substantially, the meanings of law adapt themselves with the conditions created by its time. In classical times (approximately pre 6 B.C.), the most renowned theories of law was those from the ‘trio philosophers’ Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Socrates expressed that the law is a structure of goodness. Socrates also said in his theory that the law comprises not only just rules, but also rules of conduct. To Socrates, justice is the core of law. Plato said that the law acts as a justice facility. Plato thinks that for one to attain an individual perfection shall only be possible if, in the context where, for instance, when a State is ruled under a wise ruler. It is law’s duty to guide the citizens to a shaleh and perfect life. As a consequence, sanctions given were meant to correct the criminals’ morality. According to Plato, the core of law is dikaiosune (justice: the importance of having the capacity to judge about what is right, good, and proper). On the other hand, Aristotle said that the law is all about Social Ethics. This theory itself is still in the context of justice. Aristotle linked his theory on law with the theory of social-ethics. Social-ethics awareness lies in the context of individuals as citizens of State (polis). Aristotle argued that law is the required vehicle to lead humans to attain rational moral values. One can solely be a rational moral being when he is inside a logos (orderly, rational, with morals, and enlightening) institution of a polis. By achieving this state, human could enjoy the highest level of happiness and justice. Aristotle relates justice with happiness of men. The quality of law is determined by its capacity to provide happiness for humans.
It was not but until the 19th century back then, when the meaning of law started to be interpreted as a formal-legalistic unit. This era of positivism is based by doctrines such as the following findings: (1) The only law which is accepted as the law is the positive law. (2) This certain order of law is genuine and effective not only because it has a basis on our social life, and not also because the groundwork of law is derived from the nation’s soul nor because it is a reflection of justice and logos, but because this particular law had obtained its positive form from the rightful governing institution. (3) The most important thing is when learning the law, keep it focused on its juridical form, not from the quality of its contents’. (4) The material contents of law is a non-juridical field which is studied by other fields of study, and is only significant in law making process. (5) The justification of law exists in its formal-legalistic angle, both in its form as a decree issued by the current ruler and as the derivation of the Grundnorm (see Hans Kelsen). This is the tradition of analytical jurisprudence and rechstsdogmatic which perceives hardly into the law while keeping them occupied with discussions and analyses into the law, particularly distinguishing the law as a building of systematic and logic regulation. In this kind of condition, the law drives in the slow lane, and hence must suffer quite a serious traffic jam ahead. The law cannot move on progressively when there is a clash between legal certainty and justice, and which is by, at the end, using the argument of Rule of Law, justice will be the one that is to be disregarded. All of us surely must have it still fresh in mind on what had happened in the case of Nek Minah, which was a case at which law worked while neglecting values of justice. In accordance to Satjipto Rahardjo, in such a condition it is mandatory for the law to carry its duty for serving the people, and not the other. Therefore, law is not an institution that is free from humans’ prerequisites. The quality of law is determined by whether it is able or not to dedicate itself for the sake of the men’s prosperity.
Ensuing the 19th century, whereas almost every existing State has adopted the concept of democracy, freedom of mind starting to be sounded once more, the law is again commenced to be correlated with progressive law enforcement. At least we can predict that one of the sources of chaos occurring in this nation (Indonesia) is that because the law is neither pro justice and the pro-people law is only effective in the context of normative level. For instance, many cases lay scattered and remained unfinished such as the case of Century Bank, the Nazaruddin case, Forgery of MK’s Letter case, KPK’s polemic, and many more. Such implies when one is the interpretation the law, one values it as a systematic and logical body only. In this era of democracy, old fashioned traditions such as analytical jurisprudence or rechtsdogmatic should be abandoned. It is expected that if Indonesia continues to promulgate its own “ala Indonesia meaning of Law” like this, then this country will never be in liberty from its sheer and utter chaos.
