Crossmark

PENGAWASAN KONSTITUSIONAL TERHADAP ALGORITMA PEMERINTAHAN DALAM ERA DIGITAL GOVERNANCE

Authors

  • Abdul Wahab Institut Pemerintahan Dalam Negeri

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.69916/iuris.v1i2.463

Keywords:

constitutional algorithmic control, constitutional rights, constitutional supervision, digital governance, government algorithms

Abstract

Transformasi digital pemerintahan telah mendorong penggunaan algoritma dalam pelayanan publik, verifikasi data, distribusi bantuan, dan pengambilan keputusan administratif. Meskipun meningkatkan efisiensi dan akurasi, penggunaan algoritma juga menimbulkan risiko konstitusional ketika keputusan pemerintah menjadi opak, bias, sulit diuji, atau tidak menyediakan mekanisme koreksi bagi warga negara. Penelitian ini bertujuan menganalisis pengawasan terhadap algoritma pemerintahan untuk mencegah pelanggaran hak konstitusional serta merumuskan konsep constitutional algorithmic control dalam konteks hukum tata negara Indonesia. Penelitian menggunakan metode hukum normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan, konseptual, dan konstitusional. Bahan hukum dianalisis secara kualitatif-preskriptif untuk mengidentifikasi risiko algoritmik dan merumuskan model pengawasan yang berorientasi pada pembatasan kekuasaan negara. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa algoritma pemerintahan merupakan instrumen kekuasaan publik yang harus tunduk pada prinsip legalitas, akuntabilitas, transparansi, non-diskriminasi, proporsionalitas, dan perlindungan hak asasi manusia. Kebaruan penelitian terletak pada penempatan algoritma pemerintahan sebagai objek pengawasan konstitusional, bukan sekadar objek pengaturan teknis, administratif, atau etika teknologi. Constitutional algorithmic control mencakup pengawasan sejak tahap desain, pengadaan, penggunaan data, penentuan parameter, implementasi, audit, hingga mekanisme keberatan dan pemulihan hak. Penelitian merekomendasikan penerapan algorithmic impact assessment, audit independen, human oversight yang substantif, dokumentasi sistem, pengujian bias, serta mekanisme koreksi yang mudah diakses warga negara. Kerangka ini diharapkan memperkuat negara hukum digital dengan memastikan efisiensi teknologi tetap berada dalam batas konstitusional dan tidak mengurangi perlindungan hak warga negara serta memastikan setiap keputusan berbasis algoritma dapat dijelaskan, dipertanggungjawabkan, ditinjau oleh manusia, dan diuji melalui mekanisme hukum yang efektif, transparan, proporsional, dan berkeadilan bagi seluruh warga negara.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ahn, M. J., & Chen, Y.-C. (2022). Digital transformation toward AI-augmented public administration: The perception of government employees and the willingness to use AI in government. Government Information Quarterly, 39(2), 101664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101664

Aoki, N., Tatsumi, T., Naruse, G., & Maeda, K. (2024). Explainable AI for government: Does the type of explanation matter to the accuracy, fairness, and trustworthiness of an algorithmic decision as perceived by those who are affected? Government Information Quarterly, 41(4), 101965. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2024.101965

Brownsword, R. (2022). Law, authority, and respect: Three waves of technological disruption. Law, Innovation and Technology, 14(1), 5–40. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2022.2047517

Chowdhury, S. (2024). Technology is never neutral: Robodebt and a human rights analysis of automated decision-making on welfare recipients. Australian Journal of Human Rights, 30(1), 20–40. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/1323238X.2024.2409620

Covilla, J. C. (2025). Artificial intelligence and administrative discretion: Exploring adaptations and boundaries. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 16(1), 36–50. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2024.76

De Bruijn, H., Warnier, M., & Janssen, M. (2022). The perils and pitfalls of explainable AI: Strategies for explaining algorithmic decision-making. Government Information Quarterly, 39(2), 101666. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101666

De Gregorio, G. (2021). The rise of digital constitutionalism in the European Union. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 19(1), 41–70. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moab001

Dogruel, L., Facciorusso, D., & Stark, B. (2022). “I’m still the master of the machine”: Internet users’ awareness of algorithmic decision-making and their perception of its effect on their autonomy. Information, Communication & Society, 25(9), 1311–1332. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1863999

Enarsson, T., Enqvist, L., & Naarttijärvi, M. (2022). Approaching the human in the loop: Legal perspectives on hybrid human/algorithmic decision-making in three contexts. Information & Communications Technology Law, 31(1), 123–153. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2021.1958860

Fischman-Afori, O. (2025). Due process by design: Enhancing fairness and trust in AI decision-making. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 12, 102178. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.102178

Gacutan, J., & Selvadurai, N. (2020). A statutory right to explanation for decisions generated using artificial intelligence. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 28(3), 193–216. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eaaa016

Gesk, T. S., & Leyer, M. (2022). Artificial intelligence in public services: When and why citizens accept its usage. Government Information Quarterly, 39(3), 101704. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101704

Gentile, G. (2022). Judicial protection of fundamental rights on the internet: A road towards digital constitutionalism? International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 30(4), 507–511. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eaad002

Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2023). Explaining why the computer says no: Algorithmic transparency affects the perceived trustworthiness of automated decision-making. Public Administration Review, 83(2), 241–262. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13483

Günther, M., & Kasirzadeh, A. (2022). Algorithmic and human decision making: For a double standard of transparency. AI & Society, 37(1), 375–381. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01200-5

Hariansah, S., & Qhistina, L. (2026). Toward algorithmic due process: Constitutional challenges and human rights risks in Indonesia’s digital state. Jurnal Pembangunan Hukum Indonesia, 8(1), 25–45. doi: https://doi.org/10.14710/jphi.v8i1.25-25

Jongepier, F., & Keymolen, E. (2022). Explanation and agency: Exploring the normative-epistemic landscape of the “right to explanation.” Ethics and Information Technology, 24, 49. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-022-09654-x

Kim, T. W., & Routledge, B. R. (2022). Why a right to an explanation of algorithmic decision-making should exist: A trust-based approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 32(1), 75–102. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2021.3

Kinchin, N. (2024). Voiceless: The procedural gap in algorithmic justice. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 32. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eaae024

Meijer, A., Lorenz, L., & Wessels, M. (2021). Algorithmization of bureaucratic organizations: Using a practice lens to study how context shapes predictive policing systems. Public Administration Review, 81(5), 837–846. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13391

Munch, L. A., Bjerring, J. C., & Mainz, J. T. (2024). Algorithmic decision-making: The right to explanation and the significance of stakes. Big Data & Society, 11(1). doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517231222872

Rinta-Kahila, T., Someh, I., Gillespie, N., Indulska, M., & Gregor, S. (2022). Algorithmic decision-making and system destructiveness: A case of automatic debt recovery. European Journal of Information Systems, 31(3), 313–338. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2021.1960905

Rizk, A., & Lindgren, I. (2025). Automated decision-making in public administration: Changing the decision space between public officials and citizens. Government Information Quarterly, 42(3), 102061. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2025.102061

Taylor, E. (2024). Explanation and the right to explanation. Journal of the American Philosophical Association, 10(3), 467–482. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/apa.2023.7

Van Noordt, C., & Misuraca, G. (2022). Artificial intelligence for the public sector: Results of landscaping the use of AI in government across the European Union. Government Information Quarterly, 39(3), 101714. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101714

Vredenburgh, K. (2022). The right to explanation. Journal of Political Philosophy, 30(2), 209–229. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12262

Williams, R. (2022). Rethinking administrative law for algorithmic decision making. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 42(2), 468–494. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqab032

Downloads

Published

2023-10-29

PlumX Metrics

Scite Metrics

Altmetric

How to Cite

Abdul Wahab. (2023). PENGAWASAN KONSTITUSIONAL TERHADAP ALGORITMA PEMERINTAHAN DALAM ERA DIGITAL GOVERNANCE. IURIS NOTITIA : JURNAL ILMU HUKUM, 1(2), 62–71. https://doi.org/10.69916/iuris.v1i2.463

Issue

Vol. 1 No. 2 (2023): Oktober 2023

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2023 Muhammad Suhardi

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.