https://iocscience.org/ejournal/index.php/JLS <p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Journal Of Law Science</strong> is an <strong>International</strong> <strong>Journal</strong>, a journal aims to be a peer-reviewed platform and an authoritative source of information. We publish original research papers, review articles and case studies focused on law and judiciary as well as related topics. All papers are peer-reviewed by at least one referee. <strong>Journal Of Law Science </strong>is managed to be issued Four times in every volume. The Scope of Journal of Law Science is: Law: including civil law, criminal law, administrative law, military law, constitutional law, international law. Judiciary: including judicial case management and management of the judicial apparatus.</p> <p><span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>CALL FOR PAPER [SINTA 4]</strong></span></p> <p><span style="color: #339966;"><strong>Volume 8, No 2, April (2026)</strong></span><br /><strong>Submit Deadline</strong>: Anytime (subject to Quota)<br /><strong>Published</strong>: Maret 15, 2026 (INPRES)<br /><span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>APC: 750K</strong></span><br /><a href="https://iocscience.org/ejournal/index.php/JLS/user/register" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><strong>Klik For Submit</strong></a></p> <p><strong>DOI: <a href="https://doi.org/10.35335/jls">https://doi.org/10.35335/jls</a></strong></p> Institute Of computer Science (IOCS) en-US Journal of Law Science 2684-9658 https://iocscience.org/ejournal/index.php/JLS/article/view/7367 <h3><em>The parliamentary threshold has become one of the most debated electoral mechanisms in Indonesia's post-Reform constitutional development because of its implications for party system design, democratic representation, and governmental stability. Although previous studies have examined parliamentary thresholds from legal and electoral perspectives, limited attention has been given to their broader constitutional implications within Indonesia's presidential system. This study addresses this gap by analysing the constitutional role of the parliamentary threshold and proposing a balanced constitutional framework for its future development. Employing normative legal research with statutory, conceptual, comparative, and case approaches, the study analyses constitutional provisions, electoral legislation, Constitutional Court decisions, and comparative constitutional scholarship. The findings indicate that the parliamentary threshold has reduced legislative fragmentation and strengthened governmental stability, but it also raises constitutional concerns regarding political representation, electoral equality, and democratic legitimacy. As its principal novelty, this study develops an integrated constitutional framework based on proportionality, representative democracy, and constitutional equality to evaluate parliamentary threshold regulation. Constitutionally, it argues that parliamentary thresholds should function as adaptive constitutional instruments rather than fixed electoral rules.</em> <em>From a policy perspective, the study recommends periodic evidence-based evaluation of threshold levels to ensure that future electoral reforms promote both effective governance and democratic inclusiveness in Indonesia. </em></h3> Mudhafar Anzari Al Manar Syarifah Sharah Natasya Copyright (c) 2026 Mudhafar Anzari, Al Manar, Syarifah Sharah Natasya https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 2026-10-30 2026-10-30 8 4 345 352 10.35335/jls.v8i4.7367 https://iocscience.org/ejournal/index.php/JLS/article/view/7464 <p><em>This study examines Indonesia's AI regulatory position through normative legal research, comparative regulatory analysis, and quantitative analysis of the AI Regulation Map using a 13 June 2026 snapshot. The comparison covers Indonesia and seven comparator jurisdictions, Singapore, South Korea, Japan, Spain, Italy, Sweden, and the United States, across Regulation Status, Policy Lever, Governance Type, Actor Involvement, and Enforcement Level. The findings indicate that Indonesia has lower scores than the comparator mean on the three normative dimensions used by the AI Regulation Map's Maturity Index, with gaps of 2.29 points for Regulation Status, 1.93 points for Policy Lever, and 1.54 points for Enforcement Level. Because the map is a derived indicator rather than a direct legal-validity or enforcement measure, the results are interpreted as comparative regulatory signals and are cross-checked against Indonesian and comparator primary legal sources. The normative reconstruction proposes a legal architecture that distinguishes enacted rules from guidance and draft instruments, classifies AI by risk, assigns proportionate obligations to relevant actors, embeds human oversight and digital-rights safeguards, and connects supervision with incident reporting, sanctions, and individual remedies.</em></p> Denti Sari Primawati Copyright (c) 2026 Denti Sari Primawati https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 2026-10-30 2026-10-30 8 4 330 344 10.35335/jls.v8i4.7464