The Authority of the President in Giving Amnesty

Oct 13, 2025 by leolavanderia.com.br 78 views

Introduction

The granting of amnesty by the President of the Republic of Indonesia to Baiq Nuril Maknun through Amnesty President Number 24 of 2019 has sparked a significant debate in the legal community. This decision, which departed from the legal context and humanitarian considerations, has raised questions about the authority of the president in providing amnesty in the context of criminal justice in Indonesia. This paper aims to analyze the authority of the president in giving amnesty, specifically related to the Baiq Nuril case, and to examine the legal considerations that underpinned this decision.

Background

Baiq Nuril Maknun is a woman who was ensnared in legal issues related to Article 27 paragraph (1) jo Article 45 paragraph (1) of the Information and Electronic Transaction Law (ITE Law). In the Supreme Court's decision No. 574 K/Pid.Sus/2018, Baiq Nuril was declared a victim in the case that befell her, although at first she was sentenced. This decision highlights the challenges in applying the ITE Law, which sometimes does not consider the broader context and impact, including the motives and intentions of the perpetrators that should be considered in every legal decision.

The Authority of the President in Giving Amnesty

Amnesty is an action that can eliminate the legal consequences of a crime. In this context, Article 14 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution confirms that "the President gave amnesty and abolition by taking into account the House of Representatives". The granting of this amnesty must involve in-depth considerations and not only based on legal considerations. The definition of "paying attention" includes aspects of collaboration and supervision between state institutions in the decision-making process.

The President's authority in giving amnesty is not only based on the legal provisions, but also on the humanitarian and social considerations. In the case of Baiq Nuril, the President's decision to grant amnesty was not only to implement existing regulations, but also in response to existing social conditions and justice. Baiq Nuril is seen as a victim who faces legal injustice, and the President's decision reflects efforts to bring justice in the Indonesian criminal justice system.

Legal Considerations in the Baiq Nuril Case

In the Supreme Court's decision, the judge's consideration stated that the punishment of Baiq Nuril aimed as a learning tool for the defendant and the community. However, this invited criticism because the judge did not seem to consider all aspects of the case. For example, the judge's decision was seen simplifying the provisions in the ITE Law without examining the conditions faced by Baiq Nuril. A more holistic assessment should consider that Baiq Nuril is a victim of the actual action not aimed at evil.

In addition, the judge's decision can be seen as a neglect of the complexity of legal issues that arise from the application of the ITE Law. The crime faced by Baiq Nuril is closely related to the context and behavior of individuals, which should be understood in more depth so that no one is treated unfairly.

The Role of the President in Balancing Justice and Humanitarian Considerations

The President's authority in giving amnesty should be used wisely, with consideration of humanitarian and deep social justice. The decision taken must not only be based on applicable legal provisions, but must also consider the situation and conditions faced by individuals involved in the case. Efforts to achieve more just and balanced justice are expected to build public trust in the legal system in Indonesia.

Conclusion

The President's Amnesty against Baiq Nuril Maknun reflects efforts to bring justice in the Indonesian criminal justice system. The authority of the president in giving amnesty should be used wisely, with consideration of humanitarian and deep social justice. The decision taken must not only be based on applicable legal provisions, but must also consider the situation and conditions faced by individuals involved in the case. Efforts to achieve more just and balanced justice are expected to build public trust in the legal system in Indonesia.

Recommendations

Based on the analysis of the President's authority in giving amnesty, the following recommendations can be made:

The President's authority in giving amnesty should be used wisely, with consideration of humanitarian and deep social justice.
The decision taken must not only be based on applicable legal provisions, but must also consider the situation and conditions faced by individuals involved in the case.
Efforts to achieve more just and balanced justice are expected to build public trust in the legal system in Indonesia.
The legal provisions related to amnesty should be reviewed and revised to ensure that they are in line with the humanitarian and social considerations.
The role of the President in giving amnesty should be clarified and defined to ensure that it is in line with the legal provisions and humanitarian considerations.

Limitations of the Study

This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. Firstly, the study is based on a single case, which may not be representative of all cases of amnesty in Indonesia. Secondly, the study relies on secondary legal material, which may not provide a comprehensive understanding of the legal context. Finally, the study does not consider the political and social context of the case, which may have influenced the President's decision to grant amnesty.

Future Research Directions

This study provides a foundation for future research on the President's authority in giving amnesty. Future research should aim to:

Examine the President's authority in giving amnesty in other cases, to determine whether the findings of this study are generalizable.
Investigate the role of the President in giving amnesty in the context of other legal provisions, to determine whether the findings of this study are applicable to other areas of law.
Examine the impact of the President's decision to grant amnesty on the individuals involved in the case, to determine whether the decision has achieved its intended purpose.
Investigate the role of the President in giving amnesty in the context of the Indonesian criminal justice system, to determine whether the decision has contributed to the development of a more just and balanced justice system.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study has provided a juridical analysis of the President's amnesty for Baiq Nuril Maknun, and has examined the legal considerations that underpinned this decision. The study has highlighted the importance of considering humanitarian and deep social justice in the decision-making process, and has recommended that the President's authority in giving amnesty should be used wisely, with consideration of these factors. The study has also identified several limitations and future research directions, which should be addressed in future studies.

Introduction

The President's amnesty for Baiq Nuril Maknun has sparked a significant debate in the legal community. In this article, we will address some of the frequently asked questions (FAQs) about this decision, and provide clarification on the legal considerations that underpinned it.

Q: What is the President's authority in giving amnesty?

A: The President's authority in giving amnesty is based on Article 14 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, which confirms that "the President gave amnesty and abolition by taking into account the House of Representatives". This means that the President has the power to grant amnesty, but must do so in consultation with the House of Representatives.

Q: What are the criteria for granting amnesty?

A: The criteria for granting amnesty are not explicitly stated in the law, but are generally considered to include humanitarian and social considerations. In the case of Baiq Nuril, the President's decision to grant amnesty was based on the fact that she was a victim of the actual action not aimed at evil, and that the punishment she faced was disproportionate to the crime.

Q: Can the President's decision to grant amnesty be challenged in court?

A: Yes, the President's decision to grant amnesty can be challenged in court. However, the Supreme Court has held that the President's decision is final and cannot be reviewed by the courts.

Q: What are the implications of the President's amnesty for Baiq Nuril?

A: The implications of the President's amnesty for Baiq Nuril are that she is no longer subject to the punishment she faced, and that her case is now closed. However, the amnesty does not necessarily mean that she is innocent of the crime, but rather that the punishment she faced was disproportionate to the crime.

Q: Can the President's decision to grant amnesty be seen as a precedent for future cases?

A: Yes, the President's decision to grant amnesty for Baiq Nuril can be seen as a precedent for future cases. However, each case must be considered on its own merits, and the President's decision must be based on the specific circumstances of the case.

Q: What are the limitations of the President's authority in giving amnesty?

A: The limitations of the President's authority in giving amnesty are that it must be based on humanitarian and social considerations, and that it must be in consultation with the House of Representatives. Additionally, the President's decision must be in line with the legal provisions and must not be arbitrary or discriminatory.

Q: Can the President's decision to grant amnesty be seen as a way to undermine the rule of law?

A: No, the President's decision to grant amnesty cannot be seen as a way to undermine the rule of law. The President's decision is based on humanitarian and social considerations, and is in line with the legal provisions. The amnesty is not a way to undermine the rule of law, but rather a way to ensure that justice is served in a fair and balanced manner.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the President's amnesty for Baiq Nuril Maknun has sparked a significant debate in the legal community. This article has addressed some of the frequently asked questions (FAQs) about this decision, and provided clarification on the legal considerations that underpinned it. The President's decision to grant amnesty is based on humanitarian and social considerations, and is in line with the legal provisions. The amnesty is not a way to undermine the rule of law, but rather a way to ensure that justice is served in a fair and balanced manner.