Legal Certainty and Access to Justice through Judicial Review without New Evidence: A Normative Analysis of Legal Misapplication in State Administrative Disputes

Abstract

This study examines judicial review without new evidence (novum) in State Administrative disputes as a mechanism for ensuring legal certainty and expanding access to justice within Indonesia’s administrative law system. The research aims to analyze the normative basis, judicial interpretation, and practical implications of judicial review filed on the grounds of judicial error or manifest error, particularly in decisions that have obtained final and binding legal force. Employing normative legal research, this study applies a statute approach and a case approach by examining constitutional provisions, statutory regulations on judicial power and administrative courts, as well as relevant Supreme Court decisions. The analysis focuses on judicial reasoning and the interpretation of legal errors in the absence of novum. The results indicate that although judicial review without novum serves an important corrective function to address serious misapplication of law and safeguard substantive justice, the lack of clear normative parameters has led to inconsistent judicial practices and legal uncertainty. This condition weakens the principle of finality of judgments and risks transforming judicial review into an extended litigation mechanism, especially when utilized by state administrative bodies or officials. Nevertheless, judicial review without novum remains relevant for protecting citizens’ rights where injustice arises from legal misinterpretation rather than evidentiary shortcomings. The study concludes that clearer doctrinal standards and restrictive limitations on eligible applicants are essential to balance access to justice with legal certainty in State Administrative Adjudication.