<![CDATA[This study analyzes the legal issues arising from the granting of amnesty and abolition in corruption cases, particularly concerning the unclear parameters and limits of presidential authority and their implications for the effectiveness of criminal law enforcement and judicial independence. The issue has become particularly relevant following the granting of amnesty to Hasto Kristiyanto and abolition to Tom Lembong while their judicial proceedings were still ongoing. This study employs normative legal research using a statutory and conceptual approach, analyzed descriptively and qualitatively through a literature review. The findings show that although the granting of amnesty and abolition has a constitutional basis, their application in corruption cases before the judicial process is completed may weaken the effectiveness of law enforcement, create perceptions of preferential treatment and impunity, and undermine judicial independence. The absence of clear criteria and limited oversight mechanisms also creates room for politically motivated exercise of presidential authority. This study proposes policy reform through the establishment of objective criteria and limitations on presidential authority, restricting amnesty and abolition to circumstances involving compelling national interests, and regulating their granting only after judicial proceedings have obtained final and binding legal force. In addition, the checks and balances mechanism should be strengthened through a transparent parliamentary consideration process and the involvement of the Supreme Court in providing legal consideration]]>
