Lex Programmata and Pancasila Algorithmic Justice: Reconstructing Legal Ontology in the Age of Artificial Intelligence
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The digital transformation has shifted the ontological foundation of law from lex scripta to lex programmata, where norms are written in code and autonomously executed by artificial intelligence systems. This shift creates an ontological crisis, as law no longer operates as textual authority interpreted by humans but as computational authority that is self-executing and opaque. This study aims to formulate a reconstruction of Indonesian legal ontology through the paradigm of Pancasila Algorithmic Justice. Using a juridical-normative method with conceptual and legal philosophy approaches, this research reveals three key findings. First, lex programmata is characterized as executable, atemporal, and non-discursive, thereby reducing the interpretive space essential to the due process of law. Second, Pancasila Algorithmic Justice must be positioned as meta-rules binding the entire lifecycle of algorithms, from design to deployment, to ensure alignment with national values. Third, the reconstruction of Indonesia’s legal ontology demands a paradigm shift from the rule of law to the rule of code and ethics centered on the five principles of Pancasila. The practical implications of this study include the urgency to establish a Pancasila Regulatory Sandbox and a Sila-based Algorithmic Impact Assessment as instruments of substantive justice in the era of artificial intelligence.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
References
European Commission. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). Official Journal of the European Union.
Friedman, B., & Hendry, D. G. (2019). Value sensitive design: Shaping technology with moral imagination. MIT Press.
Hildebrandt, M. (2015). Smart technologies and the end(s) of law: Novel entanglements of law and technology. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Latif, Y. (2011). Negara paripurna: Historisitas, rasionalitas, dan aktualitas Pancasila. Gramedia Pustaka Utama.
Lessig, L. (2006). Code: Version 2.0. Basic Books.
Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University Press.
Susanto, A. F. (2010). Ilmu hukum non sistematik: Fondasi filsafat pengembangan ilmu hukum Indonesia. Genta Publishing.
Cath, C. (2024). Governing artificial intelligence: Ethical, legal and technical opportunities and challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 382(2283), 20240012.
Floridi, L., & Cowls, J. (2022). A unified framework of five principles for AI in society. Harvard Data Science Review, 4(1), 1–17.
Gasser, U., & Almeida, V. A. F. (2023). A layered model for AI governance. IEEE Internet Computing, 27(2), 86–92.
Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2021). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 3(1), 9–18.
Kuner, C., Bygrave, L. A., & Docksey, C. (Eds.). (2023). The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A commentary (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Mittelstadt, B. D. (2022). Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI. Nature Machine Intelligence, 4(4), 315–317.
Veale, M., Borgesius, F. Z., & Edwards, L. (2023). Fairness and accountability in algorithmic decision-making. Computer Law & Security Review, 50, 105871.
Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., & Floridi, L. (2021). Why a right to explanation of automated decision-making does not exist in the General Data Protection Regulation. International Data Privacy Law, 11(2), 76–99.