<![CDATA[The authority of the Supreme Court to modify criminal sanctions at the cassation level raises important questions concerning judicial discretion, proportionality, and the boundaries of cassation review in Indonesian criminal justice. This study examines the Supreme Court's ratio decidendi in Decision No. 813 K/Pid/2023, particularly its decision to modify the punishment imposed on Ferdy Sambo in a premeditated murder case. The research aims to identify the legal considerations underlying the transformation of the death penalty into life imprisonment and to assess whether such modification is consistent with the principles governing cassation proceedings and sentencing proportionality. Employing a normative juridical method, this study analyzes the decision through a statutory, conceptual, and case-based approach. Primary legal materials consist of the relevant court decisions and Indonesian criminal legislation, complemented by scholarly literature concerning judicial discretion, sentencing, and cassation review. The analysis demonstrates that the Supreme Court's intervention cannot be understood merely as a correction of the lower court's sentence, but rather as an exercise of judicial authority in reassessing the proportionality of punishment within the framework of cassation. The decision illustrates the tension between judicial finality and the Supreme Court's corrective function. This study argues that greater transparency in articulating sentencing considerations is necessary to strengthen consistency, predictability, and public legitimacy in high-profile criminal adjudication. The findings contribute to the broader debate on judicial discretion and proportional sentencing in Indonesia.]]>
