ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR THE POOR: LEGAL AID POLICY BETWEEN NORMATIVE GUARANTEE AND INSTITUTIONAL PERFORMANCE

Abstract

Indonesia guarantees legal aid for the poor through constitutional provisions, a dedicated statute and judicial regulations, yet the services actually delivered remain concentrated in criminal litigation, unevenly distributed across regions and largely unmeasured against the legal problems citizens report experiencing. This study aims to assess the gap between the normative guarantee of access to justice and the institutional performance of the legal aid system, to compare delivery models in other jurisdictions, and to formulate criteria for a needs-responsive policy. The research applies normative juridical research with statutory, conceptual, case and comparative approaches, supported by an Islamic legal reading of the duty to assist the wronged and the collective obligation to sustain adjudication, drawing on Indonesian legislation and judicial regulations, foreign legal aid instruments and the access to justice literature. The findings show that the system is supply-driven rather than needs-driven: budgeting follows case counts rather than legal need, accreditation functions as a gatekeeping mechanism that disadvantages community organisations, non-litigation services remain marginal despite being where most legal problems arise, and no quality standard governs the assistance provided. The study recommends needs-based budgeting grounded in periodic legal needs surveys, statutory recognition of paralegals, enforceable quality standards, verification through the national social registry, and outcome reporting.