<![CDATA[How can the Indonesian criminal justice framework reconcile the tension between rigid formalistic certainty and substantive justice? When positivism in judicial reasoning marginalizes sociological and spiritual dimensions, does it not inevitably precipitate sentencing disparities? Addressing these inquiries, this article examines the intersubjective approach in judicial reasoning (ratio decidendi) to actualize substantive divine justice. Employing doctrinal and philosophical research, this study utilizes statutory, conceptual, and case approaches, focusing on Law Number 1 of 2023 (National Criminal Code) and court decisions. Findings reveal that intersubjectivity transforms judges into active interpreters synthesizing juridical, sociological, and philosophical pillars. This integration institutionalizes Biomijuridika, propelling a shift from retribution toward social equilibrium (blissful laws) via the adjudicative fiat (irah-irah) and judicial pardon (Rechterlijk Pardon). Consequently, judges must cultivate prophetic intelligence to withstand public pressure and prevent impunity. Conclusively, this integration reshapes the ontological and epistemological dimensions of Indonesian criminal law. To mitigate disparities, the Supreme Court should formulate technical guidelines (PERMA/SEMA) defining Rechterlijk Pardon parameters and institutionalize judicial training rooted in prophetic intelligence.]]>
Copyrights © 2025
