Legal Literacy - In our constitutional law landscape, the President not only holds governmental power (pouvoir executif), but also grasps the remnants of royal power that we know as prerogative rights. Article 14 of the 1945 Constitution mandates the President to grant clemency, rehabilitation, amnesty, and abolition. On paper, this authority is a safety valve—an emergency exit when the justice system fails to provide a sense of substantive justice. However, recent phenomena indicate a worrying shift. This extraordinary right seems to be metamorphosing into a "clean-up" instrument for the chaos of law enforcement, especially in corruption cases.

We often witness the President intervening to grant amnesty or abolition to certain figures involved in corruption cases, or cases that are "forced" into corruption. Indeed, on the one hand, the public—and perhaps some of us—breathe a sigh of relief. There is a sympathetic argument that not everyone dragged into the corruption court is a criminal who robs state money. Many of them are victims of "criminalization of policy" or administrative errors that are forcibly drawn into the criminal realm by law enforcement officials who are chasing deadlines. In this context, the President's move looks heroic; like a "Just Queen" who restores the good name of those oppressed by a rigid system.

However, if we delve into this issue with clearer legal glasses, this habit harbors latent dangers. Using prerogative rights to resolve cases deemed "out of place" or "unworthy of trial" is a shortcut (shortcut). And like a shortcut on rough terrain, it never fixes the damaged main road. This habit actually confirms that our legal system is seriously ill, and instead of treating the disease, we are only busy providing painkillers.