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 Kristiyantoand 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 theponseland the alleged order to escape for Harun Masiku, occurred during the KPK's Hand Catching Operation (OTT), which was the starting point of the enforcement process. From the point of view of substantive justice, this approach is very problematic. If the interpretation of the article is only fixated on the formality of the commencement of the investigation administratively, then legal loopholes will be wide open for perpetrators of criminal acts to avoid legal snares. Evil intent (mens rea) and actions that are clearly aimed at hindering the work of law enforcement officials, even though they have not formally entered the "investigation" stage, should already be interpreted as obstruction. The act of soakingponseland the alleged escape of Harun Masiku are concrete examples of systematic efforts to eliminate evidence and legal subjects, which directly injure the integrity of the law enforcement process. The public's sense of justice demands that the substance of the act, namely the effort to thwart or complicate the legal process, be recognized and accounted for, regardless of rigid formal boundaries. Judges as law enforcers have a moral and juridical responsibility to explore material truth. In corruption cases, where perpetrators often go to great lengths to cover their tracks and obstruct investigations, the courage of judges in applying