<![CDATA[Bribery involving judges has more serious implications than corruption offenses in general because it directly affects the integrity and independence of the judiciary. This study aims to analyze the criminal liability of judges who accept bribes and the forms of punishment imposed in Decision Number 105/Pid.Sus-TPK/2024/PN Jkt Pst and Decision Number 106/Pid.Sus-TPK/2024/PN Jkt Pst. This study employs a normative juridical method using a statutory approach and a case approach. Legal materials were analyzed descriptively and qualitatively by examining the provisions governing corruption offenses and the legal considerations contained in the two decisions. The findings indicate that judges, as subjects of criminal law, are not immune from criminal liability. Criminal liability in both cases was established based on the fulfillment of the elements of the criminal offense, the defendants’ capacity to be held responsible, the existence of culpability, and the absence of grounds for justification or excuse. With regard to sentencing, Erintuah Damanik was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment and a fine of IDR 500,000,000, while Heru Hanindyo was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment and a fine of IDR 500,000,000. Normatively, the sentences imposed fall within the statutory sentencing range applicable to the offenses. Theoretically, the sentencing is more appropriately understood as an application of the combined theory of punishment with a predominantly retributive orientation, while still incorporating preventive objectives and the protection of the integrity of, and public trust in, the judiciary.]]>
