Abstract
To support women who are dealing with the legal system, especially women victims of gender-based violence, the Indonesian government issued Supreme Court Regulation (Perma) No. 3 of 2017 on Guidelines for Judging Cases of Women in Conflict with the Law. This regulation deals with women as victims, defendants and witnesses, and is used for civil and criminal cases. The Perma appears to attempt to counterbalance existing discriminatory practices in the courts and their processes. This article discusses the effectiveness of the “special treatment” in Supreme Court Regulation (Perma) No. 3 of 2017 on Guidelines for Judging Cases of Women in Conflict with the Law. This Perma seems to provide hope for producing progressive court decisions by contributing to the elimination of discrimination against women in the court process. However, this expectation certainly needs to be reviewed, given that, in their entirety, any such proceedings involve not only judges but also other law enforcement officials, namely the prosecutors. Furthermore, the presence of this Perma is considered by some Indonesian feminists to contradict the Judicial Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Judicial Behaviour (“the Code”). The Code requires judges to be neutral in judging but this Perma demands the opposite. This study is a qualitative study, and the data is obtained through a literature study of research conducted on court decisions and gender-based violence cases involving Indonesian women.
Highlights
This article discusses the effectiveness of the Supreme Court Regulation (Perma) No 3 of 2017 on Guidelines for Judging Cases of Women in Conflict with the Law
This study is expected to contribute to the literature on concepts about the equal treatment and special treatment of women who are in conflict with the law as perpetrators in the realm of criminal law, following the enactment of Perma No 3 of 2017
Data was obtained through a literature study that centred on a court decision dealing with a gender-based violence case involving an Indonesian woman
Summary
This article discusses the effectiveness of the Supreme Court Regulation (Perma) No 3 of 2017 on Guidelines for Judging Cases of Women in Conflict with the Law. The Perma is considered progressive legislation but it is criticised by Indonesian feminists because of its contradictory Articles. This article examines the implementation of the Perma in court proceedings that involved a woman who was accused of murdering her baby following its birth. Indonesian feminists have found that court hearing processes, and the way in which judges question people during the process, undetermined women, primarily as victims (Abdullah et al 2001) and where women are alleged. Court verdicts in cases involving women (and children) as victims of violence are not meeting expectations of fair and equal treatment before the law. Research has shown that a lack of judicial awareness of women’s situations and conditions impacts judges’ considerations and decision making
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
