“Beyond Recognition: Integrating Religious Justice into Indonesia’s ADR Framework” by Jo Chitlik

Bangly Regency, Bali, Indonesia by CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (CC BY-SA 3.0).

Indonesia’s constitutional order reflects one of the most ambitious contemporary efforts to govern religious diversity through law. As an archipelagic state encompassing over 17,000 islands and hundreds of ethnoreligious communities, Indonesia has long confronted the institutional challenge of recognizing religious authority within a plural legal system. Anchored in Pancasila, the foundational philosophy enshrined in the Preamble of the 1945 Indonesian Constitution, affirms religiosity as a core component of public life while rejecting both rigid secularism and religious establishment. Rather than resolving tensions between religion and law, this pluralist framework manages them by recognizing religious authority as socially significant without identifying the state with any single religious tradition.

This constitutional settlement enables the coexistence of state law, Islamic norms and indigenous customary (adat) institutions, under the motto, Bhinneka Tunggal Ika (unity in diversity). Yet Indonesia’s pluralism often operates at a level of symbolic recognition rather than institutional design. One of the clearest illustrations of this gap is Mukim Justice, a community based governance and dispute resolution unique to the Province of Aceh in the Island of Sumatra, that integrates Islamic moral authority into customary adjudication. Mukim enjoys formal legal recognition under Aceh’s special autonomy framework and exercises jurisdiction over a defined categories of local disputes. Nevertheless, it operates without standardized procedures, clear jurisdictional boundaries, or meaningful coordination with the state’s justice system.

Mukim’s institutional fragility does not reflect religious illegitimacy. To the contrary, its authority derives from deep social trust and its embeddedness in Islamic moral norms that prioritize reconciliation (Islah), as a means to preserve communal harmony. Its marginalization instead exposes a structural limitation within Indonesia’s law and its religious framework: while religiously grounded institutions may be constitutionally acknowledged, they remain institutionally underdeveloped.

This essay uses Mukim justice in Aceh as a case study to examine the limits of Indonesia’s constitutional accommodation of religious authority. It argues that while the Pancasila ideology and the 1945 Constitution formally recognize religious and customary institutions, Indonesia’s pluralist legal order remains incomplete because it stops at recognition rather than integration. Part II situates Mukim justice within the constitutional philosophy of Pancasila, demonstrating how Indonesia affirms religion as a source of legal normality without establishing religious law as state law. Part III traces Mukim’s historical development as a community-based dispute resolution institution rooted in Islamic moral authority, emphasizing reconciliation and communal harmony as core Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) values. Part IV analyzes Mukim’s formal recognition under Aceh’s special autonomy framework, showing how it occupies a legally acknowledged but institutionally fragile position within Indonesia’s broader ADR ecosystem. Part V examines how the absence of standardized procedures, jurisdictional clarity, and institutional coordination marginalizes Mukim as a form of religiously grounded ADR, despite social legitimacy. Part VI explores the implications of this marginalization for due process and legal certainty, particularly for vulnerable populations who rely on Mukim as a primary justice forum. Part VII argues that integrating Mukim justice through coordination protocols, procedural safeguards, and capacity building would strengthen Indonesia’s ADR framework without violating constitutional commitments to religious pluralism and non-establishment. Mukim justice ultimately demonstrates that constitutional recognition alone is insufficient: religiously grounded ADR mechanisms must be institutionally designed if they are to contribute meaningfully to justice in plural legal systems.

The Constitutional Philosophy of Pancasila

The 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia anchors legal pluralism primarily in Articles 18B(2) and 28I (3), which recognize cultural identity and mandate respect for traditional customary law, religious norm, including Islamic law, within the overarching framework of state law and the principle of the Unitary Republic of Indonesia. This constitutional provision reflects the deeper normative influence of Pancasila, which supplies the philosophical foundation for accommodating diversity without fragmenting national unity. Pancasila is comprised of five principles: the belief in one God while simultaneously upholding humanity, national unity, deliberative democracy, and social justice. It legitimizes the coexistence of multiple legal orders under a single constitutional roof. This constitutional philosophy enables Indonesia to recognize Islamic institutions without transforming Islamic law into state law. It also legitimizes the continued operation of religiously informed customary practices, including dispute resolution mechanisms grounded in Islamic ethics. In this sense, Pancasila does not privatize religion; it mediates religious authority through constitutional pluralism. In practice, Indonesia manifests this commitment through Article 18B(2) of the 1945 Constitution which extends the recognition of indigenous people and their right to self-govern through traditional institutions, like Mukim that embody the richness of years of tradition, as long as such practices remain aligned with constitutional values and the principle of national cohesion. While often discussed in ethnic or cultural terms, this provision also has a religious dimension, since many customary institutions, like Mukim, are inseparable from Islamic moral authority. Constitutional recognition thus implicitly acknowledges religion as a source of legal normality outside of formal courts.

However, this recognition is conditional and under-specified. While the Constitution affirms the existence of religiously grounded institutions, it does not articulate how these institutions should interact with Indonesia’s justice system. Due to this oversight, Indonesia’s law and religion framework often finds itself stopping short of institutional integration, leaving religious authority acknowledged but its application ambiguous.

Mukim Justice as a Religiously Inflected Institution

Mukim Justice cannot be understood solely as adat (customary) law. Its authority is deeply intertwined with Islamic governance traditions that long predate the modern Indonesian state and continue to shape Acehnese conceptions of justice, legitimacy, and social order. Historically, the Mukim emerged within pre-modern Acehnese political organization as a territorially defined unit encompassing multiple villages (gampong), vested with both administrative and judicial authority. For centuries, it functioned as the institutional backbone of local dispute resolution, operating through norms and practices informed by Islamic moral reasoning rather than formal legalism.

The term Mukim itself, derived from the Arabic, signals this religious lineage. Although it’s meaning has evolved over time, in Aceh it designates a formally recognized governance institution that blends Acehnese customary law (adat) with Islamic ethical principles. A Mukim comprises a federation of several villages (gampong) led by an Imeum Mukim (head of Mukim) who exercises authority over local governance as well as customary, religious and social affairs, particularly in resolving disputes that exceed village level jurisdiction. Mukim adjudication prioritizes reconciliation over adjudication, deliberation over coercion and communal harmony over individual vindication. These practices closely align with core Islamic concepts of justice (adl), social welfare (maslahah), and moral accountability. Disputes are resolved not through the mechanical application of rules, but through moral persuasion grounded in shared religious understandings and communal expectations.

This religious embeddedness helps explain Mukim’s lasting legitimacy within the Acehnese society, particularly during periods when formal state law was distant or socially unresponsive. During both colonial rule and post-independence era, Mukim institutions persisted despite repeated efforts at legal marginalization and bureaucratic simplification. Their survival reflects not institution inertia, but the cultural resilience of religious authority in contexts where state law lacks social resonance. Mukim justice remained meaningful because it translated Islamic moral values into accessible and locally intelligible forms of dispute resolution.

Understanding Mukim as a religiously inflected institution is essential to assessing both its strength and vulnerabilities. The challenges facing Mukim justice do not stem from any inherent incompatibility between religion and the law. Rather, they stem from the state’s inability to institutionalize religious authority within its framework without diluting its moral force or bureaucratic subordination. Seen through their lens, Mukim justice is a living example of how religious norms continue to animate alternative forms of dispute resolution in contemporary Indonesia.

Legal Recognition Under Aceh’s Special Autonomy Framework

Aceh’s special autonomy framework represents Indonesia’s most sustained attempt to accommodate religious difference within the constraints of a unitary constitutional order. This framework grants Aceh limited authority to incorporate Islamic principles into governance through locally enacted legislation. It is within this legal architecture that Mukim justice received its formal recognition. Mukim’s authority is codified through a series of Acehnese laws (Qanuns) that recognize its judicial function in administrating community-based dispute resolution grounded in Islamic values  and customary norms. Most notably, Qanun No. 9/2008 on Customary Development and Qanun No. 10/2008 on Traditional Institutions formally acknowledge Mukim as a legitimate forum for resolving local disputes. Unlike many community mediation practices (musyawarah mukakat) elsewhere in Indonesia, which operate informally or at the margins of state law, Mukim is expressly incorporated into Aceh’s governance structure as a recognized institution of traditional justice.

Qanun No.9/2008, Article 13, delegates to Mukim authority over seventeen types of minor civil and criminal matters, including domestic disputes, property conflicts, and low-level social disturbances. These competencies situate Mukim squarely within the sphere of everyday legal ordering, addressing precisely the types of conflicts that rarely reach formal courts but profoundly shape community cohesion. By vesting adjudicatory authority in Mukim, the qanuns affirm religiously informed moral reasoning as a legitimate source of justice.

From a national perspective, this legal status places Mukim within Indonesia’s broader Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) landscape, which is otherwise structured primarily by Law No. 30/1999  on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution. That statute envisions ADR largely as a contractual, party-driven process dominated by arbitration, mediation, and negotiation mechanisms designed for commercial and civil disputes. Mukim departs from this model in significant ways. It is territorial based rather than consensual, morally authoritative rather than procedurally neutral, and oriented toward reconciliation and social equilibrium rather than private settlement alone. In this respect, Mukim expands the conceptual boundaries of ADR beyond efficiency and consent to include communal responsibility and religious ethics. Yet this formal recognition has not translated into institutional parity within Indonesia’s ADR ecosystem. Despite its designation as a government recognized body with defined jurisdiction, Mukim operates in a persistent organizational limbo. Its authority overlaps with gampong (village) institutions, while coordination with police, prosecutors, and state courts remains inconsistent and largely informal. Mukim institutions also lack standardized procedures, sustainable funding, and clear pathways for the enforcement or review of their decisions.

These deficiencies do not reflect a lack of social legitimacy or community reliance on Mukim justice. Rather, they point to deep structural tension within Indonesia’s plural legal order: religiously grounded institutions may be formally acknowledged yet denied the institutional support necessary to function as co-equal components of the dispute resolution system. Aceh’s special autonomy framework reveals a pattern of inclusion without consolidation, one that renders their authority legally visible but institutionally fragile. It is this dynamic that gives rise to the forms of marginalization examined in Part V.

Institutional Marginalization of Religious Authority

Mukim justice illustrates how religious authority may be constitutionally acknowledged yet remain institutionally marginalized. As Part IV demonstrates, Mukim enjoys formal recognition under Aceh’s special autonomy framework and occupies a defined role within local dispute resolution. Yet this legal acknowledgement has not been accompanied by the procedural infrastructure or institutional integration necessary to sustain its authority within Indonesia’s broader justice system.

Despite its adjudicatory mandate, Mukim lacks standardized procedures, consistent documentation practices, and stable administrative support. This implementation gaps weaken the operational credibility of Mukim justice, even as its moral authority and community reliance persist. Institutional marginalization is further compounded by jurisdictional ambiguity between Mukim and Gampong institutions. Gampong, the lowest administrative unit in Aceh, are themselves culturally and religiously rooted communities, led by an elected keuchik and authorized to resolve local disputes through courts known as peradilan adat gampong. More importantly, Mukim operates largely disconnected from the formal justice system. There are no structured mechanisms linking Mukim decisions to police enforcement, prosecutorial discretion, or judicial review. When disputes escalate beyond the Mukim level, the absence of procedural continuity undermines legal certainty and erodes the perceived authority of religiously informed resolutions. Rather than functioning as an integrated component of Indonesia’s ADR ecosystem, Mukim remains institutionally isolated. These limitations are often attributed to capacity deficits, including the limited legal training and resources available to Mukim officials. Yet such explanations obscure the deeper structural issue. The problem is not the inadequacy of religious authority, but the state’s ambivalence toward fully institutionalizing it so it can operate as a co-equal legal actor.

Religious Justice, Access to Justice, and Due Process

Mukim Justice offers meaningful access to justice advantages rooted in religious trust and social proximity. For many Acehnese communities, Mukim provides a morally intelligible and culturally legitimate forum for dispute resolution that is often unavailable through geographically distant and procedurally complex state courts. Its religious grounding facilitates voluntary compliance, emphasizes reconciliation over punishment, and enables disputes to be resolved in ways that preserve communal relationships. For these reasons, Mukim frequently functions as the primary and sometimes only justice forum for ordinary legal grievances. Yet the very institutional marginalization described in Part V generates significant due process concerns.

The absence of standardized procedures, clear jurisdictional boundaries, and reliable enforcement mechanisms introduces variability in how disputes are handled and resolved. Outcomes may depend heavily on individual adjudicators, local practice, or informal power dynamics rather than consistent procedural norms. While religious legitimacy may encourage acceptance of decisions, it cannot, on its own, guarantee fairness, transparency, or equal treatment. These risks are most acute for vulnerable populations who depend on Mukim justice precisely because formal legal institutions are inaccessible, intimidating, or perceived as socially alien.

Women, economically marginalized individuals, and those embedded in hierarchical community structures may face uneven protections when procedural safeguards are weak or inconsistently applied. In such a context, the lack of appeal mechanisms or coordination with state courts can leave disputants without recourse when confronted by unjust or even coercive outcomes.

These concerns are not present because Mukim justice is religiously grounded, rather, it’s the state’s inability to institutionalize religious dispute resolution to support both moral authority and rule-of-law standards. The challenges are therefore not whether religiously informed justice belongs within a constitutional legal order, but instead how it can be structured to provide predictable procedures, meaningful accountability and legal certainty without eroding its social legitimacy.

Indonesia’s experience with Mukim justice suggests that marginalizing religious authority within the justice system does not eliminate reliance on religious forums; it just shifts legal risk onto those least able to absorb it. A pluralistic legal order that tolerates religious justice without properly equipping it with procedural safeguards risks inequality and hinders access to justice.

Integrating Religious Authority Without Establishment

Integrating Mukim justice into Indonesia’s broader ADR framework does not require transforming religious norms into state law, nor does it entail privileging religious authority over secular institutions. Rather, it requires mechanisms that allow religiously grounded dispute resolution to operate in legally cognizable and procedurally reliable ways.

Targeted coordination protocols, baseline procedural safeguards, and capacity building measures offer ways of addressing the gap. Clear referral pathways between Mukim and state courts, standardized practices, and training for Mukim officials in basic legal principles could enhance consistency and legal certainty while preserving the conciliatory and community centered around adjudication. These measures would strengthen Mukim’s role as an ADR mechanism without sacrificing its religious or customary foundations. Religious institutions can operate within plural legal systems without violating principles of non-establishment, provided the state supports procedural fairness rather than theological content. Properly structured, Mukim can function as a bridge between Islamic moral norms and state law, enhancing the legitimacy of both without collapsing one into the other. Integration, in this sense, is not an act of endorsement, but of institutional design.

Without integration, Indonesia risks a model of managed pluralism in which religious authority is formally recognized yet functionally sidelined. Bringing Mukim justice into coordination with the state’s ADR framework would not erode constitutional commitments to religious neutrality. Instead, it would acknowledge the reality of legal pluralism while ensuring that access to religiously grounded justice does not come at the expense of due process or legal certainty.

Conclusion

Mukim Justice illustrates both the promise and the limits of legal pluralism in contemporary constitutional orders. As a religiously grounded form of ADR, Mukim offers socially legitimate and accessible dispute resolution, particularly for communities underserved by formal courts. Yet its institutional marginalization reveals how recognition without integration can undermine due process and legal certainty, especially for vulnerable populations. Indonesia’s experience suggests

that the challenge is not accommodating religious authority but designing institutions that allow it to function within the rule of law. Integrating Mukim justice through the use of procedural safeguards and coordination mechanisms would strengthen Indonesia’s ADR framework without compromising constitutional commitments to religious neutrality. More broadly, Mukim justice underscores the need for plural legal systems to move beyond symbolic inclusion toward institutional coherence. ♦

---

---

Recommended Citation

Chitlik, Jo. “”Beyond Recognition: Integrating Religious Justice into Indonesia’s ADR Framework.” Canopy Forum, February 20, 2026. https://canopyforum.org/2026/02/20/beyond-recognition-integrating-religious-justice-into-indonesias-adr-framework/

Recent Posts