Year: 2026
Type: article
Abstract: The President's granting of abolition is a complex legal and political instrument. Juridically, abolition is a prerogative right regulated by Article 14 Paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution and Emergency Law No. 11 of 1954. It functions as a mechanism to stop ongoing criminal proceedings, returning the individual to their original legal status. The problem arises in the tension between this ideal legal function and the political reality of its application. This study examines this gap by analyzing the granting of abolition to Tom Lembong, a decision that sparked public controversy and raised questions about the political motivations behind a legal act. Lembong, a former Minister of Trade, had been sentenced at first instance in a sugar-import corruption case, but the judgment was not yet final. The abolition stopped this prosecution before it reached a final and binding court decision. The analysis shows that the abolition was procedurally valid, since the case was not yet final and the DPR’s consideration was obtained, but that this consideration worked as a fast formal checkpoint rather than a substantive check. The reasons stated officially (national unity and the beneficiaries’ contributions) are documented, whereas further motives such as elite loyalty and alliance-building are presented as analytical interpretations, not established facts. The study concludes that procedural validity alone does not protect the prerogative from selective use, and that in Indonesia’s constitutional system law and politics are not always separate.
Source: Domus Legalis Cogitatio.
Authors: Abrar Muhammad, Ahmad Maulana
Institution: Universitas Islam Negeri Antasari Banjarmasin
Language: English
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: bronze
OpenAlex ID: W7225009455