Legal Literacy - The bribery case of the Inter-temporal Replacement (PAW) that dragged the names of the Secretary General (Sekjen) of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDIP) Hasto Kristiyanto and KPU Commissioner Wahyu Setiawan has become a serious polemic among anti-corruption observers. The 3.5-year prison sentence for Hasto, although lower than the prosecutor's demands, marks a new chapter in handling this case. However, the acquittal of the obstruction of justice charges has sparked fierce debate, especially from the perspective of substantive justice. The main problem lies in the interpretation of Article 21 of the Law on Corruption Eradication (Tipikor) which regulates obstruction of justice.

Formalistic Interpretation vs. Substantive Justice

The Panel of Judges in its decision stated that Hasto was not proven to have obstructed the investigation, on the grounds that the investigation stage had not yet begun when the alleged obstruction occurred. This judge's view refers to the principle of formal legality, where obstruction can only be subject to criminal sanctions if it occurs after the issuance of an investigation warrant (sprindik). Ironically, the act suspected of being an obstruction, namely the order to soak the ponsel and the alleged order to escape for Harun Masiku, occurred during the KPK's Hand Catching Operation (OTT), which was the starting…