The Dynamics of Judicial Independence in Corruption Sentencing: Between Judicial Discretion and the Principle of Legal Certainty
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Corruption remains a fundamental issue in Indonesia, particularly regarding disparities in sentencing for corruption cases under Articles 2 and 3 of the Corruption Law. To address this issue, the Supreme Court issued Regulation No. 1 of 2020 (PERMA 1/2020) as a guideline for sentencing corruption offenders. This study aims to analyze the legal consequences of PERMA 1/2020 and its impact on judicial independence in corruption cases. Using a normative legal method, the research examines legal principles, statutory regulations, and case studies. The findings indicate that while PERMA 1/2020 provides structured sentencing guidelines, disparities still occur due to judicial discretion. The case analysis of Decision No. 16/Pid.Sus-TPK/2023/PN.Smg reveals that the sentencing aligns with the imprisonment guidelines but deviates from the prescribed financial penalties. This study concludes that although PERMA 1/2020 enhances legal certainty, its application remains subject to judicial interpretation, raising questions about its consistency in corruption sentencing.
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
References
Ali, M., Muliyono, A., & Nurhidayat, S. (2023). The Application of a Human Rights Approach toward Crimes of Corruption: Analyzing Anti-Corruption Regulations and Judicial Decisions. Laws, 12(4), 68. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws12040068
Butt, S., Crockett, A., & Lindsey, T. (2024). Corruption and Illegality in Asian Investment Disputes: Indonesia. In Corruption and Illegality in Asian Investment Arbitration (pp. 259–284). Springer Nature Singapore Singapore.
Damian, E., & Hornick, R. N. (1972). Indonesia’s Formal Legal System: An Introduction. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 20(3), 492–530. https://doi.org/10.2307/839317
Hadi, S., & Michael, T. (2022). Hans Kelsen’s Thoughts about the Law and Its Relevance to Current Legal Developments. Technium Social Sciences Journal, 38, 220.
Hidayat, T., Luthviati, R. D., & Jenvitchuwong, S. (2022). Disharmonization of Supreme Court Regulations in Material Judicial Rights. Journal of Human Rights, Culture and Legal System, 2(3), 149–166. https://doi.org/10.53955/jhcls.v2i3.34
Husma, N. M., A.Rani, F., & Hasyim, S. (2018). Kewenangan Pengaturan Mahkamah Agung (Kajian Yuridis Terhadap Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 4 Tahun 2016 Tentang Larangan Peninjauan Kembali Putusan Praperadilan). Syiah Kuala Law Journal, 1(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.24815/sklj.v1i1.12233
Irwansyah, I. (2020). Penelitian Hukum: Pilihan Metode & Praktik Penulisan Artikel. Yogyakarta: Mirra Buana Media, 8.
Katz, J. S., & Katz, R. S. (1975). The New Indonesian Marriage Law: A Mirror of Indonesia’s Political, Cultural, and Legal Systems. American Journal of Comparative Law, 23, 653.
Manihuruk, T. N. S., Daeng, Y., & Johar, O. A. (2022). Penerapan Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 1 Tahun 2020 Tentang Pedoman Pemidanaan Pasal 2 Dan Pasal 3 Undang-Undang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi Di Pengadilan Negeri Pekanbaru. Jurnal Ilmiah Penegakan Hukum, 9(2), 162–169. https://doi.org/10.31289/jiph.v9i2.7568
Marzuki, M. (2011). Penelitian Hukum. Prenada Media.
Saraswati, R. (2020). Gender Bias in Indonesian Courts: Is Perma No. 3 of 2017 the Solution for Gender-Based Violence Cases? Laws, 10(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws10010002
Sasmita, R. P. R., Suseno, S., & Jaya, P. Y. (2023). The concept of reasons for eliminating corporate crime in criminal law in Indonesia. Heliyon, 9(11). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21602
Siwu, S. C. (2021). Ratio Legis Rights Material Test Of The Supreme Court In Perma Number 1 Of 2011. Awang Long Law Review, 4(1), 99–102.
Suhariyanto, B. (2018). Kedudukan Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 13 Tahun 2016 Dalam Mengatasi Kendala Penanggulangan Tindak Pidana Korporasi (The Role Of Regulation Of The Supreme Court Number 13 Year 2016 In Overcoming Obstacles Of Corporate Criminal Infringement). Negara Hukum: Membangun Hukum Untuk Keadilan Dan Kesejahteraan, 9(1), 101–120.
Voigt, S., & Gutmann, J. (2015). On the wrong side of the law – Causes and consequences of a corrupt judiciary. International Review of Law and Economics, 43, 156–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2014.04.005
Yunan, Z. Y., Freyens, B., Vidyattama, Y., & Mohanty, I. (2023). Spread of corruption in Indonesia after decentralisation: A spatiotemporal analysis. Oxford Development Studies, 51(2), 198–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600818.2022.2162493
Zuhdi, A., Ablamskyi, S., & Anggara, A. (2025). Constitutional Injury Dynamics in Judicial Review of Presidential Threshold Decisions. Kosmik Hukum, 25(1). https://jurnalnasional.ump.ac.id/index.php/KOSMIK/article/view/24476