National Resilience and the Automatic Administrative Decree: Calibrating Algorithmic Due Process
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55960/jlri.v1409.1371Keywords:
algorithmic due process, Automatic Administrative Decree, throughput legitimacy, algorithmic administrative error, national resilienceAbstract
Purpose: This study examines how the absence of procedural protection over algorithmically produced administrative decisions bears on Indonesia's national resilience, treating the political and socio-cultural gatra of Asta Gatra as the dimensions first exposed.
Study Design/Methodology/Approach: Normative-doctrinal research combining statutory, conceptual, comparative, and policy approaches, with explicit rules for grading safeguards and assigning gatra; institutional trust is treated as a conceptual mechanism, not a measured variable.
Findings: Indonesian law exhibits a fragmentation gap rather than a regulatory vacuum, since protective elements exist across separate regimes without being coupled to one another. Fragmentation becomes harm through opacity, bias, flawed data, and weak contestability, which generate systemic algorithmic administrative error, deplete throughput legitimacy, and erode the institutional trust sustaining the political and socio-cultural gatra.
Implications: Existing instruments can carry notice, explanation, human review, and contestation in priority services without new legislation, while the trust pathway awaits empirical testing.
Originality/Value: The study proposes the Automatic Administrative Decree as a doctrinal category identified by authorship, and a calibrated nine-element standard whose intensity scales with the gatra a decision touches.
References
Alifpiya, P., Nurrozaka, R., & Wulandari, W. (2025). Digital due process dilemma: A study on the application of the principle of legal certainty in ensuring accountability and data protection in Indonesia's digital public service mall. Cerdika: Jurnal Ilmiah Indonesia, 5(12), 3232-3243. https://doi.org/10.59141/cerdika.v5i12.3012
Almada, M. (2023). Automated uncertainty: A research agenda for artificial intelligence in administrative decisions. Review of European Administrative Law, 16(3), 137-158. https://doi.org/10.7590/187479823X16970258030172
Alon-Barkat, S., & Busuioc, M. (2023). Human-AI interactions in public sector decision making: "Automation bias" and "selective adherence" to algorithmic advice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 33(1), 153-169. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muac007
Ananny, M., & Crawford, K. (2018). Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability. New Media & Society, 20(3), 973-989. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816676645
Bachtiar, G. (2025). Embedding ethical AI in digital public infrastructure: Strategic governance pathways for Indonesia. Journal of Infrastructure Policy and Management, 8(2), 175-185. https://doi.org/10.35166/jipm.v8i2.123
Barocas, S., & Selbst, A. D. (2016). Big data's disparate impact. California Law Review, 104(3), 671-732. https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38BG31
Bisnis.com. (2026, February 10). BPJS ungkap ada PNS, TNI/Polri, hingga anggota dewan jadi peserta PBI. Retrieved October 9, 2026, from https://finansial.bisnis.com/read/20260210/215/1951786/bpjs-ungkap-ada-pns-tnipolri-hingga-anggota-dewan-jadi-peserta-pbi
Bovens, M., & Zouridis, S. (2002). From street-level to system-level bureaucracies: How information and communication technology is transforming administrative discretion and constitutional control. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 174-184. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00168
Budiman, A., Taufiq, O. H., & Nurholis, E. (2022). Ancaman intoleransi terhadap dasar negara Pancasila dan implikasinya terhadap ketahanan ideologi wilayah (Studi di Kabupaten Tasikmalaya, Jawa Barat, periode 2019-2020). Jurnal Ketahanan Nasional, 28(3). https://doi.org/10.22146/jkn.61332
Busuioc, M. (2021). Accountable artificial intelligence: Holding algorithms to account. Public Administration Review, 81(5), 825-836. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13293
Cahoo v. SAS Analytics Inc., Nos. 18-1295/1296 (6th Cir. January 3, 2019). https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/19a0001p-06.pdf
Citron, D. K. (2008). Technological due process. Washington University Law Review, 85(6), 1249-1313. https://journals.library.wustl.edu/lawreview/article/id/6697/
Cobbe, J., Lee, M. S. A., & Singh, J. (2021). Reviewable automated decision-making: A framework for accountable algorithmic systems. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT '21) (pp. 598-609). https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445921
Cojocaru, A. (2025). Governing AI with trust: An adaptive framework for institutional legitimacy in the UK public sector. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-05-2025-0125
Crawford, K., & Schultz, J. (2014). Big data and due process: Toward a framework to redress predictive privacy harms. Boston College Law Review, 55(1), 93-128. https://bclawreview.bc.edu/articles/620/files/63ae71f65c8fc.pdf
Flórez Rojas, M. L. (2025). Algocracy in the judiciary: Challenging trust in the system. Revista de Estudios Sociales, 93, 107-128. https://doi.org/10.7440/res93.2025.06
Gontarz, I. (2023). Judicial review of automated administrative decision-making: The role of administrative courts in the evaluation of unlawful regimes. ELTE Law Journal, 1(1), 151-162. https://doi.org/10.54148/ELTELJ.2023.1.151
Green, B., & Chen, Y. (2019). The principles and limits of algorithm-in-the-loop decision making. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 3(CSCW), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359152
Grimmelikhuijsen, S., & Meijer, A. (2022). Legitimacy of algorithmic decision-making: Six threats and the need for a calibrated institutional response. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 5(3), 232-242. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvac008
Gules-Guctas, E. (2026). How do algorithmic decision-making systems used in public benefits determinations fail? Insights from legal challenges. Public Administration Review, 86(2), 371-382. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.70043
Haitsma, L., & Brink, B. (2025). From human intervention to human involvement: A critical examination of the role of humans in (semi-)automated administrative decision-making. Digital Government: Research and Practice, 6(3), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1145/3716173
Hickok, M. (2024). Public procurement of artificial intelligence systems: New risks and future proofing. AI & Society, 39(3), 1213-1227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01572-2
Huggins, A. (2021). Addressing disconnection: Automated decision-making, administrative law and regulatory reform. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 44(3), 1048-1077. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/agispt.20211005054415
Jawa Pos. (2026, September 7). 1.845 warga Surabaya turun desil usai verifikasi Dinsos. Retrieved October 9, 2026, from https://www.jawapos.com/surabaya-raya/2609070442/1845-warga-surabaya-turun-desil-usai-verifikasi-dinsos
Johari, B. (2026). Dual erosion of equality and remedy in algorithmic decision systems. Discover Artificial Intelligence, 6(1), 245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-026-01040-6
Karimullah, S. S., Al Qhuraissy, M. A., Irawan, F., Sunatar, B., & Sugiharto, A. B. (2025). Pancasila economy: Forgotten dream or weapon against inequality? Jurnal Lemhannas RI, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.55960/jlri.v13i1.1023
Kementerian Komunikasi dan Informatika Republik Indonesia. (2023). Surat Edaran Menteri Komunikasi dan Informatika tentang Etika Kecerdasan Artifisial.
Kharel, A. (2018). Doctrinal legal research (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 3130525). SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3130525
Koulu, R. (2020). Proceduralizing control and discretion: Human oversight in artificial intelligence policy. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 27(6), 720-735. https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X20978649
Langer, C. (2024). Decision-making power and responsibility in an automated administration. Discover Artificial Intelligence, 4, 59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-024-00152-1
Lee, K. M. (2025). Aligning Indonesia's space command with Astagatra. Jurnal Lemhannas RI, 13(1), 73-92. https://doi.org/10.55960/jlri.v13i1.1068
Maghfirli, A. S., Farina, T., & Ali, N. (2025). Credit scoring P2P lending fintech: Right to explanation in AI-based credit. Eduvest - Journal of Universal Studies, 5(11), 13773-13785. https://doi.org/10.59188/eduvest.v5i11.52362
Malgieri, G., & Comandé, G. (2017). Why a right to legibility of automated decision-making exists in the General Data Protection Regulation. International Data Privacy Law, 7(4), 243-265. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipx019
Martin, K., & Waldman, A. (2023). Are algorithmic decisions legitimate? The effect of process and outcomes on perceptions of legitimacy of AI decisions. Journal of Business Ethics, 183(3), 653-670. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-05032-7
NJCM et al. v. The State of the Netherlands, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2020:1878 (District Court of The Hague, 2020). https://data.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraken/content?id=ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2020:1878
Oswald, M. (2018). Algorithm-assisted decision-making in the public sector: Framing the issues using administrative law rules governing discretionary power. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 376(2128), 20170359. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2017.0359
Parviainen, J., Koski, A., Eilola, L., Palukka, H., Alanen, P., & Lindholm, C. (2025). Building and eroding the citizen-state relationship in the era of algorithmic decision-making: Towards a new conceptual model of institutional trust. Social Sciences, 14(3), 178. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14030178
Parycek, P., Schmid, V., & Novak, A.-S. (2024). Artificial intelligence (AI) and automation in administrative procedures: Potentials, limitations, and framework conditions. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 15(2), 8390-8415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01433-3
Puspitasari, K. D., & Wiryantiningsih, E. (2022). Challenges in using automated decision-making in public administration in Indonesia. KnE Social Sciences, 7(9). https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v7i9.10965
Republika. (2026, February 10). Menkes ingin ada waktu sosialisasi jika kepesertaan PBI JKN kembali berubah. Retrieved October 9, 2026, from https://news.republika.co.id/berita/ta8ikb487/menkes-ingin-ada-waktu-sosialisasi-jika-kepesertaan-pbi-jkn-kembali-berubah
Republik Indonesia (2009). Undang-Undang Nomor 25 tentang Pelayanan Publik. https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/38748/uu-no-25-tahun-2009
Republik Indonesia (2022). Undang-Undang Nomor 27 Tahun tentang Pelindungan Data Pribadi. https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/229798/uu-no-27-tahun-2022
Republik Indonesia (2014).Undang-Undang tentang Administrasi Pemerintahan. https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/38695/uu-no-30-tahun-2014
Republik Indonesia (2023). Undang-Undang Nomor 6 tentang Penetapan Peraturan Pemerintah Pengganti Undang-Undang Nomor 2 Tahun 2022 tentang Cipta Kerja menjadi Undang-Undang. https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/246523/uu-no-6-tahun-2023
Republik Indonesia. (2026). Peraturan Menteri Sosial Nomor 3 Tahun 2026 tentang Persyaratan dan Tata Cara Perubahan Data Penerima Bantuan Iuran Jaminan Kesehatan. https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/344537/permensos-no-3-tahun-2026
Republik Indonesia. (2019a). Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 71 Tahun 2019 tentang Penyelenggaraan Sistem dan Transaksi Elektronik. https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/122030/pp-no-71-tahun-2019
Republik Indonesia. (2019b). Peraturan Presiden Nomor 39 Tahun 2019 tentang Satu Data Indonesia. https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/108813/perpres-no-39-tahun-2019
Republik Indonesia. (2023). Peraturan Presiden Nomor 82 Tahun 2023 tentang Percepatan Transformasi Digital dan Keterpaduan Layanan Digital Nasional. https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/273981/perpres-no-82-tahun-2023
Republik Indonesia. (2018). Peraturan Presiden Nomor 95 Tahun 2018 tentang Sistem Pemerintahan Berbasis Elektronik. https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/96913/perpres-no-95-tahun-2018
Republik Indonesia. (2022). Peraturan Presiden Nomor 132 Tahun 2022 tentang Arsitektur Sistem Pemerintahan Berbasis Elektronik Nasional. https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/233483/perpres-no-132-tahun-2022
Robles, P., & Mallinson, D. J. (2025). Artificial intelligence technology, public trust, and effective governance. Review of Policy Research, 42(1), 11-28. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12555
Roehl, U. B. U., & Hansen, M. B. (2024). Automated, administrative decision-making and good governance: Synergies, trade-offs, and limits. Public Administration Review, 84(6), 1184-1199. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13799
Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme. (2023). Report (Vol. 1). Commonwealth of Australia. https://robodebt.royalcommission.gov.au/publications/report
Sayogo, D. S., Yuli, S. B. C., & Wiyono, W. (2020). Challenges and critical factors of interagency information sharing in Indonesia. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 14(5), 791-806. https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-11-2019-0108
Sayogo, D. S., Yuli, S. B. C., & Amalia, F. A. (2024). Data-driven decision-making challenges of local government in Indonesia. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 18(1), 145-156. https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-05-2023-0058
Sekti, A. F., & Firdaus, S. U. (2024). Ketahanan nasional dalam perspektif kebijakan politik hukum kontemporer. Souvereignty: Jurnal Demokrasi dan Ketahanan Nasional, 3(1), 51-58.
Simanjuntak, R. Z. P. P., Gusnar, I., Solihin, D., Tantri, S., Andrea, H. P., Dj, T., & Santoso, S. (2024). Reactualization of national resilience: A historical and conceptual study. Jurnal Lemhannas RI, 12(1), 65-80. https://doi.org/10.55960/jlri.v12i1.558
Soepandji, K. W., & Farid, M. (2018). Konsep bela negara dalam perspektif ketahanan nasional. Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan, 48(3), 436-456. https://doi.org/10.21143/jhp.vol48.no3.1741
Szot, A. (2025). Algorithm in the structure of administrative decision-making: A model of explainability and burden of proof for an effective legal remedy within discretionary power in public administration. Studia Iuridica Lublinensia, 34(5), 269-282. https://doi.org/10.17951/sil.2025.34.5.269-282
Taeihagh, A. (2021). Governance of artificial intelligence. Policy and Society, 40(2), 137-157. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2021.1928377
Taekema, S. (2018). Theoretical and normative frameworks for legal research: Putting theory into practice. Law and Method. https://doi.org/10.5553/REM/.000031
Triyanti, N., Handayani, I. G. A. K. R., & Karjoko, L. (2025). Legal gaps in personal data protection: Reforming Indonesia's population administration law. Hasanuddin Law Review, 11(1), 132. https://doi.org/10.20956/halrev.v11i1.6177
Widlak, A., van Eck, M., & Peeters, R. (2021). Towards principles of good digital administration: Fairness, accountability and proportionality in automated decision-making. In M. Schuilenburg & R. Peeters (Eds.), The algorithmic society: Technology, power, and knowledge (pp. 67-83). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429261404-6
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Ferroka Putra Wathan, Ferry Preska Wathan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.