The legal system in the world is broadly divided into common law system and civil law system. These two systems have their own characteristics and followers. Countries that adhere to civil law system are usually French colonies and their derivatives because the basis of this legal system is the Napoleon Code which is considered the first legal codification. Napoleon Code which was adopted in France developed and spread under French rule over its colonies. Therefore, the Netherlands and Indonesia adhere to this system because they are under the shadow of French colonialism.

The main characteristic of this legal system is that judges are seated as mouthpieces of the law or only dictate what the law says. The space for legal progressiveness through judge innovation in finding the law is not too broad. Everything contained in the law must be obeyed and the law must not be deviated from in the judge's decision, even if it is. Therefore, the law provides maximum and minimum limits, for example in terms of sanctions, so that judges can maneuver while within the corridor of the law.

If it is different from the law, then the judge must describe the legal decidendi or its legal considerations in order to maintain the arguments of the decision. Jurisprudence that becomes a precedent for judges can only be adopted if the decision gives rise to norms that are not regulated in the law, such as the "Chimney Decision". The implication is that there is a very wide disparity in decisions because the decisions of one judge are not bound by those of another.

The opposite of civil law system, common law system carrying the principle of stare decisis or judges are bound by previous court decisions, especially in higher courts. In this legal system, judges do not adhere to laws because the tradition of legal codification does not have much place in this legal system. The judge who will decide must consider the previous judge's decision and it is highly condemned if it violates the previous decision. However, if the judge finds a discrepancy between the old decision and the concrete case being faced, then the judge can make a different decision as long as he can build an argument against the form of "deviation". With such practices, disparities in decisions will be very rare because every judge is bound by jurisprudence except in special circumstances.