<![CDATA[The specific minimum sentence in corruption crimes aims to provide a deterrent effect and guarantee legal certainty. However, after the Constitutional Court Decision No. 25/PUU-XIV/2016, there has been a shift in the sentencing paradigm, where judges are given discretionary space to consider substantive justice even though the minimum sentence provisions still apply. This study uses a normative juridical method with a statutory regulatory approach and case studies, and is analyzed using the ASTACITA framework. The results of the study show that the Constitutional Court's decision strengthens the independence of judges but also opens up the potential for disparity in sentencing and legal uncertainty, especially in cases involving justice collaborators. This study emphasizes the importance of a balance between legal certainty and substantive justice, as well as the urgency of national sentencing guidelines to prevent deviations in discretion. ASTACITA is used as a normative basis in measuring the proportionality and accountability of sentencing in the corruption criminal law system in Indonesia.]]>
Copyrights © 2025
