Furthermore, Lon L. Fuller in his work The Morality of Law reminds us that law has an internal morality (inner morality of law). One of its main principles is that the law must not contain contradictions, must not demand the impossible, and there must be a correspondence between the rules announced and the actual actions of state officials. When lawmakers compile manipulative academic texts—falsifying data, ignoring empirical studies, or inserting smuggled articles that have never been discussed transparently—then the internal morality of the law collapses. The truth claimed by the forming regime is merely an illusion imposed on the public through instruments of state coercion.

The Death of Public Reason in the Legislative Machine

The pathology of law-making that is full of intrigue and manipulation is usually marked by the phenomenon of fast-track legislation (fast-track legislation) or what in the legal political literature is often criticized as stealth legislation. This practice reflects a heartbreaking irony: on the one hand, the state claims to be an adherent of popular sovereignty, but on the other hand, the people are systematically excluded from the policy formulation process that will govern their lives and deaths. When bills are discussed late at night, in luxury hotels far from the reach of public cameras, or passed in a matter of days without drafts accessible to the public, then parliament is essentially practicing a betrayal of the constitution itself.

In conditions like this, the legislative process is reduced to merely a rubber-stamping machine (rubber stamp) for the will of capital holders and political elites. The courtroom, which should be an arena for intellectual debate and academic argument, turns into a transactional market where truth is exchanged for political concessions. Academic texts, which ideally should be a solid scientific foundation based on primary and secondary literature references, often become mere formality documents that are carelessly made only to fulfill administrative obligations. This manipulation of academic texts is a high-level intellectual lie, because it distorts social and scientific facts to justify a policy that actually only benefits a few.

If we borrow the lens of responsive sociology of law from Philippe Nonet and Philip Selznick, the law produced through the tyranny of the majority in parliament by ignoring substantive public participation tends to mutate into repressive law. The main characteristic of repressive law is the subordination of law to the politics of power. Law is no longer functioned as a means of social engineering (law as a tool of social engineering) as aspired to by Mochtar Kusumaatmadja, but is hijacked into a means of social manipulation. The resulting rules will never be able to create just order, but only produce a pseudo-order, where citizens' compliance does not arise from legal awareness, but from fear of criminal sanctions and repression by law enforcement officials.