<![CDATA[The criminal justice system requires judges to uphold the principles of justice, legal certainty, and proportionality in every decision. However, judicial practice shows that judges may impose criminal sentences below the special minimum penalty stipulated in narcotics legislation, particularly when the facts revealed during the trial differ from the prosecutor’s indictment. This condition raises legal issues regarding the authority of judges, the limits of judicial discretion, and the protection of defendants’ procedural rights. This research aims to examine the considerations of the panel of judges in imposing criminal sanctions below the minimum penalty for narcotics offenders outside the prosecutor’s indictment and to analyze the legal consequences arising from such decisions. This research employs a normative juridical method using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. The primary legal materials consist of the 1945 Constitution, the Criminal Procedure Code, Law Number 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics, Law Number 48 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power, and Supreme Court Decision Number 6929K/Pid.Sus/2022. The results indicate that the judge’s decision to impose a sentence below the minimum threat was based on considerations of justice, the facts proven during the trial, and the judicial interpretation of the circumstances surrounding the defendant’s actions. However, such rulings spark legal debate as they may conflict with the principle that verdicts must align with the prosecutor's charges and statutory provisions. This highlights the need to balance judicial independence with legal certainty. Clearer parameters for judicial discretion in narcotics cases are needed to ensure consistency and public trust.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
