Criminal Justice vs Administrative Justice in Corruption Cases: The Urgency of Criminal Justice Reform in Indonesia

This study seeks to elucidate the conflict between criminal justice and administrative justice (legal dualism) in addressing corruption stemming from the abuse of authority by state officials in Indonesia, which has resulted in legal confusion. This study seeks to delineate options within the context of criminal justice reform. This research constitutes a normative legal analysis. The study's findings indicate that the implementation of Law No. 30 of 2014 on Government Administration has led to a duality in combating corruption associated with the misuse of authority by government officials, revealing a conflict between the criminal justice system and the administrative justice system, with the current emphasis favouring the criminal justice system. Moreover, Supreme Court Regulation No. 04 of 2015, addressing this dualism, engenders confusion as its content asserts that the State Administrative Court possesses the jurisdiction to receive, scrutinise, and adjudicate requests for an evaluation of potential abuse of authority in the decisions and/or actions of government officials "prior to the criminal process."  The phrase "before the existence of a criminal process" is ambiguous, considering the numerous steps within the criminal justice system in Indonesia. The author suggests that it should be revised to state, "the Administrative Court possesses the jurisdiction to receive, scrutinise, and adjudicate requests for the evaluation of potential abuse of authority in the Decisions and/or Actions of Government Officials prior to their referral to the Court (Corruption Court)." Moreover, it is essential to establish this by statutory regulation to ensure its legitimacy, rather than relying solely on a Supreme Court Regulation.