Absolute Discretion of Judges in Indonesia as the Epicenter of Judicial Corruption

Abstract

This study critically examines the correlation between the absolute discretionary power inherent in judges in the Indonesian judicial system and the rampant pathology of judicial corruption. The analysis focuses on how the philosophical and legal construction of judicial power in the civil law tradition has created an epicenter that structurally fosters the practice of buying and selling decisions. Using normative legal research methods reinforced by comparative analysis, this study dissects the existing legal framework and compares it with other systems. The research findings reveal that absolutism in the use of judicial discretion, which is not balanced by an effective and transparent oversight mechanism, has created a systemic gap that undermines the integrity and public trust in the judiciary. Based on these findings, this study concludes that revolutionary structural reform is needed, not just cosmetic improvements. The main solution offered is limiting the sole discretion of judges through the adoption of a lay participation model, such as the lay judge or jury system, contextually adapted to the Indonesian legal framework. To achieve this, the study recommends two concrete reform paths: first, through the creation of a new legal umbrella in the form of a Law on the Position of Judges that limits and regulates discretion; and second, by utilizing the Supreme Court's authority to issue Supreme Court Regulations establishing binding sentencing guidelines, thereby reducing the scope for arbitration and abuse of authority.