<![CDATA[This research aims to analyze the application of alternative charges in Class I narcotics crimes and assess their conformity with trial facts and elements of the offenses charged. This research employs a normative legal method using a statutory approach and a case approach, analyzed qualitatively through primary and secondary legal materials. The primary case examined is Decision Number 29/Pid.Sus/2026/PN Kka issued by the Kolaka District Court, involving the defendant RANDI Bin MUSAFIR charged under Article 114 paragraph (2) of Law Number 35 of 2009 on Narcotics, in relation to the unlawful sale and distribution of 5.3659 grams of methamphetamine. The research findings indicate that alternative charges are commonly used by public prosecutors as a strategy to anticipate evidentiary obstacles during trial proceedings. However, their implementation does not fully reflect the compatibility between the legal construction of the charges and the actual facts established at trial. In practice, judges tend to select the charge that is easiest to prove based on available evidence, without comprehensively assessing all facts revealed. This creates a gap between substantive truth and the legal reasoning in judicial decisions. Furthermore, there is an unclear boundary between the elements of narcotics distribution and possession, which opens the door to multiple interpretations and potential legal uncertainty. Problems were also identified in the evidentiary aspect, particularly regarding the validity of certain evidence and compliance with due process. Therefore, it is necessary to improve the drafting of indictments and enhance judicial precision in order to achieve legal certainty, justice, and expediency.]]>
