Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background: The Principle of Divinity, rooted in the first precept of Pancasila and Article 29 of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, is a constitutional value that should guide the formation, interpretation, and review of law. Its practical translation remains uneven, particularly in matters concerning freedom of religion and belief. Objective: This study examines three interrelated functions of the Principle of Divinity—legitimation, interpretation, and control—and their implications for legal certainty and substantive justice. Methods: This normative-doctrinal study employs statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. Primary legal materials comprise constitutional provisions, legislation, and selected decisions of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of Indonesia. Reports published by the SETARA Institute are used solely as secondary contextual sources, rather than as empirical data collected by the authors. Results: The analysis shows that the three functions operate sequentially but are translated into legal norms and practice inconsistently. Legitimation may be undermined when implementing regulations impose disproportionate barriers; interpretation varies across judicial decisions; and judicial control remains selective. The analysis of regulations and judicial decisions supports the identification of inconsistencies in value translation and the development of a six-stage harmonization model. SETARA Institute monitoring indicates persistent violations of freedom of religion or belief; however, the reported figures are treated as contextual indicators rather than as evidence of causation. Conclusion: The central problem lies in the inconsistent translation of the Principle of Divinity from philosophical and constitutional values into legislation, institutional interpretation, judicial control, and legal practice. Continuous harmonization is necessary to align constitutional values concerning religion with the principles of equality, human dignity, and the protection of rights.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Timisela et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: