DISKRESI PRESIDEN DALAM PEMBERIAN REHABILITASI TERHADAP PELAKU TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI: ANALISIS KONSTITUSIONAL ATAS KASUS IRA PUSPADEWI DALAM PERSPEKTIF CHEKS AND BALANCES

Abstract

The granting of rehabilitation by the President is a constitutional authority stipulated in Article 14, paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. However, the exercise of this authority with respect to perpetrators of corruption has sparked debate regarding the limits of the President’s discretion within a democratic rule-of-law system, particularly when it potentially conflicts with the independence of the judiciary and the principle of checks and balances. This study aims to analyze the legal framework of the President’s authority to grant rehabilitation, the constitutional limits on the exercise of discretion in granting rehabilitation, and its implications through a case study of the rehabilitation granted to Ira Puspadewi, the former President Director of PT ASDP Indonesia Ferry. This research employs a normative legal research method using the statutory approach, the conceptual approach, and the case approach. Primary, secondary, and tertiary legal sources were analyzed qualitatively using systematic interpretation and legal reasoning. The research findings indicate that the President’s authority to grant rehabilitation is not an absolute prerogative, but rather an administrative authority whose exercise is limited by the rule of law, the principle of legality, provisions regarding discretion in Law No. 30 of 2014 on Government Administration, general principles of good governance, as well as the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. An analysis of the Ira Puspadewi case reveals that the absence of clear normative parameters regarding the granting of rehabilitation creates room for differing interpretations, the politicization of authority, and the potential for abuse of discretion, thereby impacting judicial independence, the effectiveness of anti-corruption efforts, governmental integrity, and public trust. This study proposes the framework that presidential rehabilitation should be understood as an “administrative follow-through”—that is, an administrative action that merely implements the administrative consequences of judicial legitimacy without altering or diminishing the legal effects of a court ruling. Based on this framework, it is necessary to establish more comprehensive regulations regarding the granting of rehabilitation so that the exercise of the President’s authority remains within the bounds of the Constitution and the rule of law.