Analysis of the Social Meaning of Law in Land Dispute Resolution Decisions At the State Administrative Court

Sociological Study of Law on Legal Decision at the Surabaya State Administrative Court No. 33/G/2025/PTUN.SBY Concerning Land Ownership Disputes

Abstract

This study aims to examine the socio-legal meaning of the decisions of the Surabaya State Administrative Court (PTUN), focusing on the social construction of law and the interpretation of the decisions by legal actors and the public. Furthermore, this study analyzes the social, cultural, political, and legal factors that influence judges' considerations in deciding land dispute case No. 33/G/2025/PTUN.SBY. The approach used is qualitative-descriptive, using legal discourse analysis and social interpretation methods. Data were obtained through a study of decision documents, in-depth interviews with judges, plaintiffs, advocates, and related parties, and observations of the trial process. The analysis was conducted thematically, integrating four main theories: social justice theory (John Rawls, Amartya Sen, Nancy Fraser), legal pluralism theory (Sally Engle Merry, John Griffiths), symbolic interaction theory (Herbert Blumer), and structuration theory (Anthony Giddens). The results indicate that the socio-legal construction in the Surabaya PTUN decisions reflects an integration of positive law and human values. Judges not only uphold legal certainty but also deliver substantive justice by considering public morality and social welfare. Meanwhile, the interpretation of decisions by legal actors and society demonstrates that justice is not solely determined by legal texts, but also by social experiences, symbolic communication, and the sense of humanity felt during the judicial process. The interaction process in the courtroom is a crucial arena in establishing the social legitimacy of the law, where the feeling of being heard and treated fairly becomes a moral symbol of living law. From the perspective of social, cultural, political, and legal factors, it was found that social inequality between citizens and the government remains a major challenge in accessing administrative justice. Nevertheless, judges act as moral agents and power mediators, balancing rigid legal structures with dynamic social needs through reflective discretion. In the context of value pluralism, judges navigate the conflict between modern, legalistic law and local values ??oriented toward social harmony, mutual cooperation, and respect for human dignity. The conclusion of this study confirms that substantive justice and the social legitimacy of the law can only be achieved if positive law is operationalized through the conscience of judges who are sensitive to humanitarian values ????and the social context of society. Just law is living law that is, law that does not stop at text, but continues to transform through moral, social, and interactional practices within society. Thus, in this case, the Surabaya Administrative Court (PTUN) serves as a concrete example of how the rule of law can be combined with a sense of justice, producing law that is not only normatively valid but also socially and morally meaningful.