Reconstructing the Principle of Due Process of Law in Automated Public Decision-Making in Digital Public Services
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.62894/6d17cp27Keywords:
algorithmic accountability, automated public decision-making, digital public services, due process of lawAbstract
This study examines the reconstruction of the principle of due process of law in automated public decision-making within digital public services in Indonesia. The objective is to analyze how citizens’ procedural rights should be protected when public service decisions are made, supported, or significantly influenced by algorithmic systems. This research employs a qualitative legal method with a normative-juridical and conceptual approach. Data were collected through documentary study of Indonesian legal instruments concerning government administration, public services, personal data protection, electronic systems, and electronic-based government, supported by relevant scholarly literature on automated decision-making, administrative law, and algorithmic accountability. The findings show that Indonesia’s current legal framework provides general principles of legality, accountability, public service obligations, and data protection, but has not yet specifically regulated the procedural consequences of automated public decision-making. This regulatory gap may weaken citizens’ ability to understand, correct, question, and challenge algorithm-based public service decisions. The study proposes an algorithmic due process framework consisting of five core rights: the right to notification, the right to explanation, the right to data correction, the right to meaningful human review, and the right to administrative or judicial challenge. This study contributes to administrative law scholarship by linking classical due process principles with algorithmic governance in digital public services.
References
Agbabiaka, O., Ojo, A., & Connolly, N. (2025). Requirements for trustworthy AI-enabled automated decision-making in the public sector: A systematic review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 215, 124076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2025.124076
Aoki, N., Tatsumi, T., Naruse, G., & Maeda, K. (2024). Explainable AI for government: Does the type of explanation matter to the accuracy, fairness, and trustworthiness of an algorithmic decision as perceived by those who are affected? Government Information Quarterly, 41(4), 101965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2024.101965
Bignami, F. (2022). Artificial intelligence accountability of public administration. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 70(Supplement_1), i312–i346. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avac012
Busuioc, M. (2021). Accountable artificial intelligence: Holding algorithms to account. Public Administration Review, 81(5), 825–836. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13293
Decker, M. C., Wegner, L., & Leicht-Scholten, C. (2025). Procedural fairness in algorithmic decision-making: The role of public engagement. Ethics and Information Technology, 27, 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-024-09811-4
Gesk, T. S., & Leyer, M. (2022). Artificial intelligence in public services: When and why citizens accept its usage. Government Information Quarterly, 39(3), 101704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101704
Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2023). Explaining why the computer says no: Algorithmic transparency affects the perceived trustworthiness of automated decision-making. Public Administration Review, 83(2), 241–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13483
Hariansah, S., & Qhistina, L. (2026). Toward algorithmic due process: Constitutional challenges and human rights risks in Indonesia’s digital state. Jurnal Pembangunan Hukum Indonesia, 8(1), 25–45. https://doi.org/10.14710/jphi.v8i1.25-25
Hillo, J., Vento, I., & Erkkilä, T. (2025). Algorithmic governance: Experimental evidence on citizens’ and public administrators’ legitimacy perceptions of automated decision-making. Public Administration. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.70028
Hoeppner, S., & Samek, M. (2024). Procedural fairness as stepping stone for successful implementation of algorithmic decision-making in public administration: Review and outlook. AUC Iuridica, 70(2), 85–99. https://doi.org/10.14712/23366478.2024.24
Madan, R., & Ashok, M. (2023). AI adoption and diffusion in public administration: A systematic literature review and future research agenda. Government Information Quarterly, 40(1), 101774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101774
Maragno, G., Tangi, L., Gastaldi, L., & Benedetti, M. (2023). Exploring the factors, affordances and constraints outlining the implementation of artificial intelligence in public sector organizations. International Journal of Information Management, 73, 102686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102686
Medaglia, R., Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Pardo, T. A. (2023). Artificial intelligence in government: Taking stock and moving forward. Social Science Computer Review, 41(1), 123–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393211034087
Mergel, I., Dickinson, H., Stenvall, J., & Gascó, M. (2023). Implementing AI in the public sector. Public Management Review. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2023.2231950
Mitchell, M. (2022). Analyzing the law qualitatively. Qualitative Research Journal, 23(1), 102–113. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-04-2022-0061
Morgan, H. (2022). Conducting a qualitative document analysis. The Qualitative Report, 27(1), 64–77. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2022.5044
Rizk, A., & Lindgren, I. (2025). Automated decision-making in public administration: Changing the decision space between public officials and citizens. Government Information Quarterly, 42(3), 102061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2025.102061
Schiff, D. S., Schiff, K. J., & Pierson, P. (2022). Assessing public value failure in government adoption of artificial intelligence. Public Administration, 100(3), 653–673. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12742
Suksi, M. (2021). Administrative due process when using automated decision-making in public administration: Some notes from a Finnish perspective. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 29(1), 87–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-020-09269-x
Van Noordt, C., & Tangi, L. (2023). The dynamics of AI capability and its influence on public value creation of AI within public administration. Government Information Quarterly, 40(4), 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2023.101860
Williams, R. (2022). Rethinking administrative law for algorithmic decision making. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 42(2), 468–494. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqab032
Wirtz, B. W., Langer, P. F., & Fenner, C. (2021). Artificial intelligence in the public sector: A research agenda. International Journal of Public Administration, 44(13), 1103–1128. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2021.1947319
Zuiderwijk, A., Chen, Y.-C., & Salem, F. (2021). Implications of the use of artificial intelligence in public governance: A systematic literature review and a research agenda. Government Information Quarterly, 38(3), 101577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101577
Legal Materials
Law No. 25 of 2009 concerning Public Services.
Law No. 27 of 2022 concerning Personal Data Protection.
Law No. 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration.
Presidential Regulation No. 95 of 2018 concerning the Electronic-Based Government System.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Muhammad Suhardi (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
