Article Sidebar

Submitted
Dec 16, 2025
Published
Dec 19, 2025
Download
Pdf
Statistic
Read Counter : 56 Download : 14

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

Restrictions on freedom of religion within Indonesia’s legal system continue to generate normative and practical debates, particularly due to regulatory practices that tend to be repressive and discriminatory toward certain religious groups. This situation reflects an ongoing tension between the protection of fundamental rights and the state’s interest in maintaining social order. This study aims to analyze freedom of religion in Indonesia from a utilitarian perspective, specifically through John Stuart Mill’s harm principle, and to propose a legal reformulation oriented toward justice and the promotion of the common good. The research employs a normative legal method using philosophical and conceptual approaches, drawing on statutory regulations, legal doctrines, and utilitarian legal philosophy. The findings indicate that current restrictions on religious freedom in Indonesia are inconsistent with utilitarian principles, as they often undermine the greatest happiness of those affected without clear evidence of actual harm to society at large. The proposed legal reform includes revising discriminatory regulations, simplifying the licensing procedures for houses of worship in a non-discriminatory manner, and accelerating the establishment of a National Regulatory Body as a mechanism for legal harmonization. The application of the harm principle in public policymaking has significant implications for strengthening the protection of religious freedom, balancing individual liberty with social order, and fostering a more just and welfare-oriented legal system.

Keywords

Freedom of Religion Utilitarianism Legal Reform Indonesian Legal System

Article Details

Creative Commons License

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

References

  1. Ahadi, Nugroho, Ali Masyhar Mursyid, and Cahya Wulandari. “Restitusi Dalam Tindak Pidana Kekerasan Seksual Di Indonesia Ditinjau Dari Perspektif Utilitarianisme.” Esensi Hukum 5, no. 2 (2023): 57–69. https://doi.org/10.35586/esensihukum.v5i2.254
  2. Alifah, Nur. “Penyediaan Pendidikan Inklusif Sekolah Dasar Perspektif Kesetaraan Nilai Utilitarianisme John Stuart Mill.” Jurnal Intelek Dan Cendikiawan Nusantara 1, no. 4 (2024): 5247–57
  3. Aswandi, Bobi, and Kholis Roisah. “Negara Hukum dan Demokrasi Pancasila Dalam Kaitannya Dengan Hak Asasi Manusia (HAM).” Jurnal Pembangunan Hukum Indonesia 1, no. 1 (2019): 128–45. https://doi.org/10.14710/jphi.v1i1.128-145
  4. Binawan, Alexius Andang Listya. “Lacunae Iuris Dalam Hukum Keben Beragama Di Indonesia.” GEMA Teologika: Jurnal Teologi Kontekstual Dan Filsafat Keilahian 8, no. 1 (2023): 99–120. https://doi.org/10.21460/gema.2023.81.1008
  5. Cornellia, Verina, Natasya Sugianto, Natallia Glori, and Michel Theresia. “Fenomena Childfree Dalam Perspektif Utilitarianisme Dan Eksistensialisme.” Praxis: Jurnal Filsafat Terapan 1, no. 01 (2022). https://journal.forikami.com/index.php/praxis/article/view/32
  6. Cristiana, Maya. “Hak Konstitusional: Politik Hukum Keben Beragama di Indonesia.” Progresif: Jurnal Hukum 16, no. 2 (2022): 234–54. https://doi.org/10.33019/progresif.v16i2.3419
  7. Handayani, Febri. “Konsep Keben Beragama Menurut UUD Tahun 1945 Serta Kaitannya dengan HAM.” Toleransi 1, no. 2 (2009): 218–31. https://doi.org/10.24014/trs.v1i2.453
  8. Heldi, Abdil Raulaelika Fauzan, Akshal Heldiansyah Ripdia, and Asyifa Zahra. “Demokrasi, Keadilan, Dan Utilitarianisme Dalam Upaya Legitimasi Kekuasaan Birokrasi.” Jurnal Dialektika: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial 19, no. 1 (2021): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.63309/dialektika.v19i1.58
  9. Jacobson, Daniel. “Utilitarianism without Consequentialism: The Case of John Stuart Mill.” The Philosophical Review 117, no. 2 (2008): 159–91. https://doi.org/10.1215/00318108-2007-035
  10. Lermatan, Petrus. “Utilitarianisme Menurut John Stuart Mill Dan Relevansinya Bagi Aktivitas Ekonomi: Perspektif Filsafat Ekonomi.” Jurnal Seri Mitra (Refleksi Ilmiah Pastoral) 3, no. 1 (2024): 197–205
  11. Manulang, Novriyanti, Firdaus Firdaus, and Zulwisman Zulwisman. “Analisis Perwujudan Jaminan Dan Perlindungan Hukum Negara Atas Keben Beragama Dan Beribadat Dalam Perspektif Pasal 28e Undang-Undang Dasar Tahun 1945.” Jurnal Ilmiah Wahana Pendidikan 10, no. 16 (2024): 637–48. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13764919
  12. Marzuki, Suparman. “Politik Hukum Hak Asasi Manusia Tentang Keben Beragama Pasca Orde Baru.” Jurnal Hukum Ius Quia Iustum 26, no. 2 (2019): 215–37. https://doi.org/10.20885/iustum.vol26.iss2.art1
  13. Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianisme. BASI, 2020
  14. Nuha, Dzatu Aliviatin, Halimatussadiah, and Alima Syahidah. “Konsep Keben John Stuart Mill: Telaah Kritis Terhadap Liberalisme Menurut Naquib Al-Attas.” Jurnal Sains, Sosial, Dan Studi Agama 1, no. 4 (2025): 437–50
  15. Nurdin, Nazar. “Delik Penodaan Agama Islam Di Indonesia.” International Journal Ihya’ Ulum al-Din 19, no. 1 (2017): 129–60. https://doi.org/10.21580/ihya.18.1.1745
  16. Pertiwi, Kunti Tri, and Deddy Roemansyah. “Hukum Sebagai Penyokong Kebahagiaan: Konsep Utilitarianisme Jeremy Bentham Dalam Konteks Modern.” Al-Balad: Jurnal Hukum Tata Negara Dan Politik Islam 4, no. 2 (2024): 63–74. https://doi.org/10.59259/ab.v4i2.190
  17. Pinilih, Sekar Anggun Gading, and Sumber Nurul Hikmah. “Aktualisasi Nilai-Nilai Pancasila Terhadap Hak Atas Keben Beragama Dan Beribadah Di Indonesia.” Masalah-Masalah Hukum 47, no. 1 (2018): 40–46. https://doi.org/10.14710/mmh.47.1.2018.40-46
  18. Radjawane, Pieter. “Keben Beragama Sebagai Hak Konstitusi Di Indonesia.” SASI 20, no. 1 (2014): 30–36. https://doi.org/10.47268/sasi.v20i1.343
  19. Rahman, Ayi, and Muhammad Falikh Rifqi Maulana. “Analisis Kritis Terhadap Pemikiran Utilitarianisme Jeremy Bentham Dalam Perspektif Etika Dan Filsafat Manusia.” JSD: Journal of Society and Development 3, no. 2 (2023): 53–64. https://doi.org/10.57032/jsd.v4i1.207
  20. Rahman, Budiarti. “Implementasi Perlindungan Konstitusional Keben Beragama Perspektif Negara Hukum Indonesia.” Al-Adl 9, no. 1 (2016): 75–96. https://doi.org/10.31332/aladl.v9i1.665
  21. Razak, Askari, A. Sakti R. S. Rakia, and A. Darmawansya. “Konstitusionalitas Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Keben Beragama dan Beribadah di Indonesia.” Justisi 8, no. 3 (2022): 177–97. https://doi.org/10.33506/jurnaljustisi.v8i3.1925
  22. Ridwansyah, Rizki. “Konsep Teori Utilitarianisme Dan Penerapannya Dalam Hukum Praktis Di Indonesia.” Nusantara: Jurnal Pendidikan, Seni, Sains Dan Sosial Humaniora 2, no. 01 (2024). https://journal.forikami.com/index.php/nusantara/article/view/570
  23. Salam, Safrin, La Ode Muhammad Karim, La Gurusi, Kaswandi Kaswandi, Fajrin Tonny, and Rasmala Dewi. “The Concept of Austin and Jeremy Bentham and Its Relevance to the Construction of Indigenous People.” Journal of Transcendental Law 6, no. 1 (2024): 32–43. https://doi.org/10.23917/jtl.v6i1.4153
  24. Schofield, Philip. “Jeremy Bentham and HLA Hart’s Utilitarian Tradition in Jurisprudence.” Jurisprudence, ahead of print, Routledge, December 1, 2010. https://doi.org/10.5235/204033210793524258
  25. Septiansyah, Zainal B., and Muhammad Ghalib. “Konsepsi Utilitarianisme dalam Filsafat Hukum dan Implementasinya di Indonesia.” Ijtihad 34, no. 1 (2018): 27–34
  26. Sihombing, Rizky Darmawansyah. “Problematika Alat Peraga Kampanye Pada Masa Pemilihan Umum Perspektif Teori Utilitarianisme.” Grondwet 3, no. 1 (2024): 300–314. https://doi.org/10.61863/gr.v3i1.35
  27. Sokol, Mary. “Jeremy Bentham on Love and Marriage: A Utilitarian Proposal for Short-Term Marriage.” The Journal of Legal History 30, no. 1 (2009): 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/01440360902765415
  28. Supriyanto, Bambang Heri. “Penegakan Hukum Mengenai Hak Asasi Manusia (HAM) Menurut Hukum Positif Di Indonesia.” Jurnal Al-Azhar Indonesia Seri Pranata Sosial 2, no. 3 (2016): 151–68
  29. Taufik, Andi Darma, Fitri Wahyuni, and Hendra Gunawan. “Analisis Sejarah Dan Perkembangan Teori Utilitarianisme Terhadap Hukum Indonesia.” Yurisprudentia: Jurnal Hukum Ekonomi 10, no. 1 (2024): 88–102. https://doi.org/10.24952/yurisprudentia.v10i1.11107
  30. Ummah, Aniqotul. “Ahmadiyah Dan Hak Atas Keben Beragama Di Indonesia.” Jurnal Keamanan Nasional 2, no. 1 (2016). https://ejurnal.ubharajaya.ac.id/index.php/kamnas/article/view/59-76
  31. Utama, Andrew Shandy, and Toni Toni. “Perlindungan Negara Terhadap Keben Beragama Di Indonesia Menurut Undang-Undang Dasar 1945.” Civitas (Jurnal Pembelajaran Dan Ilmu Civic) 6, no. 2 (2020): 12–24. https://doi.org/10.36987/civitas.v2i1.1072
  32. Viner, Jacob. “Bentham and J. S. Mill: The Utilitarian Background.” The American Economic Review 39, no. 2 (1949): 360–82