PENGHAPUSAN TINDAK PIDANA MELALUI ABOLISI DAN AMNESTI: IMPLIKASI YURIDIS TERHADAP PENEGAKAN HUKUM DAN PRINSIP NON-INTERVENSI POLITIK

Abstract

 Abstrak

Penghapusan tindak pidana melalui abolisi dan amnesti merupakan kewenangan konstitusional Presiden yang menempati posisi penting dalam sistem hukum Indonesia, namun sekaligus memunculkan tantangan yuridis terkait independensi penegakan hukum dan potensi intervensi politik. Mekanisme tersebut dirancang sebagai instrumen luar biasa untuk menyelesaikan persoalan tertentu yang tidak dapat ditangani melalui proses peradilan biasa, seperti rekonsiliasi nasional atau koreksi terhadap kriminalisasi yang menyimpang. Kendati demikian, sifat abolisi yang dapat menghentikan proses hukum sebelum adanya putusan berkekuatan tetap serta karakter amnesti yang bersifat kolektif menimbulkan kekhawatiran terkait akuntabilitas, kepastian hukum, dan perlindungan terhadap hak korban. Melalui pendekatan yuridis normatif, penelitian ini menelaah karakteristik kedua instrumen tersebut dalam kerangka konstitusi, asas legalitas, dan mekanisme checks and balances yang melibatkan DPR. Analisis menunjukkan bahwa pemberian abolisi dan amnesti harus dibatasi oleh standar substantif dan prosedural yang ketat, termasuk transparansi alasan pemberian, pengawasan politik dan yudisial, serta pertimbangan terhadap dampak sosial dan yuridis. Penerapan prinsip non-intervensi politik menjadi kunci dalam mencegah penyalahgunaan kewenangan, memastikan bahwa keputusan penghapusan pidana tidak menjadi sarana melindungi kepentingan tertentu. Dengan demikian, diperlukan penguatan norma dan pedoman implementatif agar abolisi dan amnesti tetap berfungsi sebagai instrumen konstitusional yang legitimate tanpa mengurangi integritas peradilan dan kepercayaan publik.

Kata kunci: abolisi, amnesti, independensi penegakan hukum

Abstract

The abolition of criminal liability through abolition (abolisi) and amnesty is a constitutional prerogative of the President that occupies a central position in the Indonesian legal system, while at the same time raising juridical challenges concerning the independence of law enforcement and the risk of political intervention. These mechanisms are designed as extraordinary instruments to resolve specific issues that cannot be effectively addressed through ordinary judicial processes, such as national reconciliation or the correction of wrongful or excessive criminalization. Nevertheless, the nature of abolition, which can terminate legal proceedings before a final and binding verdict is rendered, and the collective character of amnesty, give rise to concerns regarding accountability, legal certainty, and the protection of victims’ rights.Using a normative juridical approach, this study examines the characteristics of both instruments within the framework of the Constitution, the principle of legality, and the system of checks and balances involving the House of Representatives (DPR). The analysis demonstrates that the granting of abolition and amnesty must be constrained by strict substantive and procedural standards, including transparency of the reasons for their issuance, effective political and judicial oversight, and careful consideration of their social and legal implications. The application of the principle of non-political intervention is crucial to preventing abuses of power and to ensuring that decisions to extinguish criminal liability do not become tools for protecting particular interests. Accordingly, there is a need to strengthen normative provisions and implementing guidelines so that abolition and amnesty continue to function as legitimate constitutional instruments without undermining judicial integrity and public trust.

Keywords: abolition, amnesty, independence of law enforcement