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 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 soaking ponsel and 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 judicial activism is needed. Judicial activism is 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.

Law Enforcement Challenges and Harun Masiku's Debt of Pursuit

The Harun Masiku case, with all its twists and turns, has been going on for a long time and has passed through several election cycles. The existence of Harun Masiku who is still a fugitive to this day is a reflection of various obstruction efforts and also the slow handling by law enforcement officials. ICW's doubts about Harun Masiku's cleverness in hiding, and the alleged obstruction efforts and slow prosecution of other parties involved, are a reflection of public perception about the incompleteness of this case substantively. Substantive justice demands that the case be resolved to its roots, not stopping at the verdict against one or two individuals. As long as Harun Masiku is still a fugitive, this chain of crime has not been broken. Law enforcement officials, especially the KPK, have a great responsibility to continue to hunt down and arrest Harun Masiku, and uncover the entire network involved in this PAW bribery case. The success of arresting Harun Masiku will be proof of the seriousness of law enforcement in achieving true justice, namely uncovering all material truths and dragging all parties responsible to the green table. In addition, this case also highlights the importance of coordination and synergy between law enforcement agencies. Harun Masiku's fugitive for many years raises big questions about the effectiveness of search and arrest efforts. Are there weaknesses in coordination, or even alleged political intervention that hinders the process? These questions must be answered with concrete and transparent actions from law enforcement officials. In the context of progressive law enforcement, the court should be an arena to seek material truth and uphold justice as fairly as possible, not just apply the law textually. Judges have a central role in ensuring that every decision not only meets legal formalities, but also reflects a sense of justice in society. If the judge's decision feels anticlimactic and disproportionate to the impact of the crime, it will weaken public trust in the justice system and corruption eradication efforts.