judicial activismis needed.Judicial activismis not a form of deviation from the law, but rather an effort to fill legal loopholes or overcome weaknesses in the formulation of articles in order to achieve higher justice. If Article 21 of the Corruption Law does have weaknesses in the scope of prosecution before formal investigation, then the judge should use his discretion to interpret more broadly actions that are substantially obstruction. The inability or unwillingness to do this means ignoring the reality on the ground and giving an advantage to criminals. The causal relationship (causality) between the "Father's" order and Harun Masiku's fugitive status must also be a crucial consideration. If the prosecutor can prove the existence of the order, then Hasto should be held accountable for the causal impact it caused, namely Harun Masiku's fugitive who has not been arrested to date. This situation significantly hinders the disclosure of the case thoroughly and injures the public's sense of justice. Substantive justice demands that every party who directly or indirectly contributes to hindering the legal process be held accountable, and not only those who formally meet the elements of the article.

An Anticlimactic Verdict and Neglect of Election Integrity

The 3.5-year prison sentence imposed on Hasto Kristiyanto has also become a sharp spotlight. This sentence is far lower than the prosecutor's demand, which is 7 years. The excuse that Hasto's dedication to the state through various public positions is used as a consideration that mitigates the sentence is a flawed logic and is contrary to the principle of true justice. Someone who has served the state and occupies a public position should have a higher standard of integrity. When an individual with such a background is involved in a criminal act of corruption, his actions should be seen as a betrayal of the public trust and therefore become an aggravating factor, not the other way around. Corruption, especially bribery in the context of elections, is a serious crime that fundamentally damages the joints of democracy. Elections are the main pillar of democracy, a process that is organized at great cost and must be protected from dirty intervention. Bribery to KPU Commissioners, as happened in this case, is a systematic effort to tarnish the integrity of elections and replace the will of the people with bribes. This not only injures corruption eradication efforts, but also damages public trust in democratic institutions. Therefore, the sentence imposed should reflect the seriousness and destructive impact of the crime. A low sentence, instead of providing a deterrent effect, has the potential to create a bad precedent and reduce the weight of election corruption crimes in the eyes of the public. In the context of substantive justice, punishment must be proportional to the social impact caused by the crime. Bribery in elections has a broad domino effect, ranging from distorted political representation, loss of public trust, to potential political instability. Judges, in deciding sentences, should consider these factors in depth; not only looking at the state's financial losses, but also non-financial losses in the form of damage to the system and public trust.