<![CDATA[Introduction: Corruption, particularly bribery, remains a major issue in Indonesia, impacting not only the economy and the country's finances but also undermining public trust in state institutions. Bribery within government creates social inequality and hinders development aimed at achieving a fair and prosperous society. Despite existing regulations aimed at combating corruption, inconsistencies in sanctions and disparities in court decisions remain significant problems. Purposes of the Research: The purpose of this study is to identify whether the reality of court rulings in bribery cases in 2013 and 2023 reflects the goals outlined in Law Number 20 of 2001 on the eradication of corruption, and to analyze whether there is any disparity in these rulings caused by different judicial considerations. Methods of the Research: This research employs a normative legal research method, using statute approach, conceptual approach, and analytical approach. The statute approach is used to analyze the legal provisions in Law Number 31 of 1999 as amended by Law Number 20 of 2001, particularly those regulating bribery offenses. The conceptual approach is used to understand the legal concepts of justice and legal certainty in sentencing. The analytical approach is applied to compare court rulings in 2013 and 2023 and identify any potential disparities. Results Main Findings of the Research: The research reveals that there is a disparity in sentencing for bribery cases, despite the clarity of existing legal provisions. The differences in sentences imposed by judges are influenced by varying judicial considerations, such as the defendant's confession, the return of illicit gains, and the defendant’s role in the case. The study also found that although sentencing guidelines have been implemented, consistency in sentencing needs further improvement. This highlights the importance of enhancing clearer and more structured sentencing guidelines to reduce unwarranted disparities in punishment.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
