CONSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT FOR MACHINE LEARNING-BASED SYSTEM ERRORS IN DIGITAL PUBLIC SERVICES

Authors

  • Wiredarme Institut Pemerintahan Dalam Negeri

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.69916/jkbti.v3i3.480

Keywords:

constitutional accountability, digital public services, machine learning, public administration, state responsibility

Abstract

This study examines the constitutional accountability of the government for machine learning-based system errors in Indonesia’s digital public services. The objective is to analyze how state responsibility should be formulated when digital systems misread data, reject applications, delay access, produce inaccurate classifications, or incorrectly process citizens’ rights. This research applies a qualitative legal method with normative-juridical, conceptual, and socio-legal approaches. The analysis is based on constitutional norms, public service law, government administration law, personal data protection law, electronic-based government regulations, and recent scholarly debates on automated decision-making and public-sector AI governance. The findings show that machine learning-based errors cannot be treated as ordinary technical failures when they affect citizens’ access to public services. Such errors must be understood as failures of public authority because the system operates within the institutional responsibility of the state. Indonesia already has legal foundations for public service, administrative responsibility, digital government, and personal data protection, but it lacks a specific accountability framework for machine learning-based public service errors. This study proposes the concept of state constitutional responsibility for governmental technology failure, consisting of preventive, explanatory, corrective, institutional, and remedial accountability. The contribution of this study lies in framing machine learning errors in public services as constitutional accountability issues, not merely as technical, administrative, or contractual problems.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

U. B. U. Roehl, “Automated decision-making and good administration: Views from inside the government machinery,” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 40, no. 4, 101864, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2023.101864.

U. B. U. Roehl and M. B. Hansen, “Automated, administrative decision-making and good governance: Synergies, trade-offs, and limits,” Public Administration Review, vol. 84, no. 6, pp. 1185–1198, 2024, doi: 10.1111/puar.13799.

U. Roehl and J. Crompvoets, “Inside algorithmic bureaucracy: Disentangling automated decision-making and good administration,” Public Policy and Administration, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 322–350, 2025, doi: 10.1177/09520767231197801.

V. Carlsson, “Legal certainty in automated decision-making in welfare services,” Public Policy and Administration, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 302–321, 2025, doi: 10.1177/09520767231202334.

H. Hirvonen, “Just accountability structures: A way to promote the safe use of automated decision-making in the public sector,” AI & Society, vol. 39, pp. 155–167, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s00146-023-01731-z.

A. Rizk and I. Lindgren, “Automated decision-making in public administration: Changing the decision space between public officials and citizens,” Government Information Quarterly, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2025.102061.

R. Madan and M. Ashok, “AI adoption and diffusion in public administration: A systematic literature review and future research agenda,” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 40, no. 1, 101774, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2022.101774.

J. I. Criado, R. Sandoval-Almazán, and J. R. Gil-Garcia, “Artificial intelligence and public administration: Understanding actors, governance, and policy from micro, meso, and macro perspectives,” Public Policy and Administration, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 173–184, 2025, doi: 10.1177/09520767241272921.

P. G. R. de Almeida and C. D. dos Santos Júnior, “Artificial intelligence governance: Understanding how public organizations implement it,” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 42, no. 1, 102003, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2024.102003.

M. J. Ahn and Y.-C. Chen, “Digital transformation toward AI-augmented public administration: The perception of government employees and the willingness to use AI in government,” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 39, no. 2, 101664, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2021.101664.

C. van Noordt and L. Tangi, “The dynamics of AI capability and its influence on public value creation of AI within public administration,” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 40, no. 4, 101860, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2023.101860.

H. de Bruijn, M. Warnier, and M. Janssen, “The perils and pitfalls of explainable AI: Strategies for explaining algorithmic decision-making,” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 39, no. 2, 101666, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2021.101666.

T. S. Gesk and M. Leyer, “Artificial intelligence in public services: When and why citizens accept its usage,” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 39, no. 3, 101704, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2022.101704.

O. Agbabiaka, A. Ojo, and N. Connolly, “Requirements for trustworthy AI-enabled automated decision-making in the public sector: A systematic review,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 215, 124076, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2025.124076.

M. L. Montagnani, M.-C. Najjar, and A. Davola, “The EU regulatory approach(es) to AI liability, and its application to the financial services market,” Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 53, 105984, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.clsr.2024.105984.

A. Guenduez and I. Mergel, “Algorithms in the public sector: A review of discretion and administrative values,” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 41, no. 1, 101894, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2023.101894.

L. Tummers and P. Rocco, “Discretion in the age of artificial intelligence,” Public Management Review, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 450–472, 2024, doi: 10.1080/14719037.2023.2211556.

M. Veale and I. Brass, “Administration by algorithm? Public management meets public sector machine learning,” Public Management Review, vol. 21, no. 8, pp. 1193–1216, 2019, doi: 10.1080/14719037.2018.1495832.

Downloads

Published

2024-09-29

PlumX Metrics

Scite Metrics

Altmetric

How to Cite

[1]
Wiredarme, “CONSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT FOR MACHINE LEARNING-BASED SYSTEM ERRORS IN DIGITAL PUBLIC SERVICES”, JKBTI, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 163–171, Sep. 2024.