P.D. Diocto (2023) conducted research on sentencing in corruption cases at the Pontianak District Court and found that most defendants were prosecuted

under Articles 2 and 3 of the Corruption Eradication Act (UU Tipikor) for acts that caused financial losses to the state. However, there was a significant disparity in court rulings on these cases. To address this issue, the Supreme Court issued Supreme Court Regulation (Perma) No. 1 of 2020 as a sentencing guideline. Despite this, the judicial panel views Perma as merely a guideline rather than a binding procedural law, meaning that judges continue to base their rulings on the prevailing legislation. However, this judicial discretion is not absolute; it must be exercised responsibly and free from internal or external interference.

This research aims to further examine sentencing trends, not just in individual cases but as a broader phenomenon over the past five years, since the Supreme Court introduced its sentencing regulations in 2020. A deeper legal analysis of these sentencing provisions will also be conducted, focusing on their implementation in corruption cases. As a recommendation, this study will explore alternative legal formulations, particularly regarding sentencing standards in corruption cases, to ensure greater consistency in judicial decisions and prevent sentencing disparities in corruption cases.

Medani P. Bhandari (2023), in the journal “ASEJ Scientific Journal of Bielsko Biala School of Finance and Law, Volume 27, No. I (2023), p. 13”, wrote an article titled “The Corruption: A Chronic Disease of Humanity: Causes, Effects, and Consequences.” His research states that corruption is a chronic disease that hinders development and weakens trust in institutions, particularly in developing countries. Eradicating corruption requires a collective effort from academics, practitioners, international bodies, the UN, and governments. Corruption cannot be eliminated overnight; instead, it demands long-term commitment and a comprehensive approach, including legal, institutional, and cultural reforms. Efforts should include strengthening legal frameworks, promoting transparency and accountability, ensuring integrity in public services, engaging communities, and addressing socio-economic factors. International cooperation, such as sharing best practices, providing technical assistance, and financial support, is also crucial.

Ultimately, minimizing corruption requires a cultural shift toward integrity, transparency, and ethics. Only through collaboration among all stakeholders can corruption be reduced, supporting sustainable development, social justice, and improved quality of life in developing countries. This study is closely related to the author’s research, particularly regarding the essence of corruption, its impacts, and its root causes in developing countries. The findings serve as a foundation for analyzing the core issues of corruption, leading to the conclusion that one of the key factors driving the rise of corruption in Indonesia is sentencing policies.

Supreme Court Regulation (Perma) No. 1 of 2020 provides sentencing guidelines for corruption cases, specifically those regulated under Articles 2 and 3 of Law No. 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of Corruption Crimes. This regulation

aims to guide judges in imposing penalties on corruption offenders in a more consistent and measurable manner.

Article 2 of Law No. 31 of 1999 addresses acts of corruption that clearly cause financial losses to the state or national economy, which can be subject to severe punishments, including life imprisonment. This article focuses on deliberate actions by perpetrators that harm the state. Meanwhile, Article 3 regulates the abuse of authority by state officials or individuals in certain positions to enrich themselves or others, indirectly causing financial losses to the state.

Perma No. 1/2020 provides sentencing guidelines based on the severity of state financial losses and the role of the perpetrator in the corruption offense. It classifies state financial losses into several categories, ranging from minor to significant, each with corresponding sentencing consequences. The greater the financial loss caused by corruption, the harsher the punishment imposed. Additionally, this regulation considers various factors, such as the role of the perpetrator—whether they were the main actor or merely an accomplice—as well as any efforts made to compensate for state losses. The goal is to ensure proportional justice in sentencing by taking into account all relevant aspects of corruption cases.

This regulation establishes clearer sentencing standards for judges, aiming to minimize sentencing disparities across different courts. Perma No. 1/2020 also emphasizes the importance of transparency and accountability in the sentencing process for corruption crimes, ensuring that punishments genuinely reflect justice and serve as a deterrent to both offenders and the broader society.

Numerical data on corruption sentencing provisions under Perma No. 1/2020 is organized into tables for easier presentation and analysis. Sentencing for corruption offenses under Articles 2 and 3 is classified into five categories, with the sentencing provisions outlined in Table 1. To assess the correlation between the extent of state financial losses and sentencing provisions under Perma No. 1/2020, a statistical correlation analysis was conducted using SPSS software (Table bellow).

Table 1. Provisions of Perma No. 1/2020 on Sentencing for Corruption Crimes.

Figure 2. Scatter Plot Analysis of Trend Correlations: Perma Number 1/2020.

Source: Statistical Analysis Results (SPSS) of Perma No. 1 of 2020.

The interpretation of the statistical correlation analysis using SPSS on Perma No. 1/2020 indicates a significant correlation between state financial losses and sentencing provisions, both in terms of imprisonment and fines. The correlation coefficient between state financial losses and imprisonment provisions is 0.703, while the correlation between state financial losses and fine provisions is 0.706. These correlation values indicate that the severity of sentencing for corruption crimes is directly influenced by the magnitude of financial losses caused by unlawful actions that harm the state or national economy.

The strong correlation between financial losses and sentencing provisions for both imprisonment and fines in corruption cases reflects efforts to enforce proportionality in criminal sanctions. Perma No. 1/2020 aims to create consistency in sentencing by linking the severity of punishment to the extent of state financial losses. This approach aligns with the principle of justice, ensuring that the greater the financial impact, the harsher the punishment, thereby reinforcing deterrence.

However, inconsistencies in judicial decisions and sentencing disparities remain issues that undermine public trust in law enforcement. Therefore, strengthening the implementation of Perma No. 1/2020 through stricter adherence to sentencing guidelines, increased judicial accountability, and greater transparency in rulings is essential. By establishing a more predictable and fair sentencing framework, public confidence in the judiciary can be restored while demonstrating the state’s commitment to eradicating corruption and upholding the rule of law.

The verdicts in corruption cases at the Pontianak District Court (PN Pontianak) contain several key elements that form the basis of legal considerations. These include proving the elements of corruption, determining the defendant’s guilt or innocence, and imposing appropriate criminal sanctions. Judges assess whether the defendant’s actions meet the elements stipulated in Law Number 31 of 1999 in conjunction with Law Number 20 of 2001 on the Eradication of Corruption Crimes, such as causing state financial losses, abuse of authority, or unlawfully enriching oneself.

During the evidentiary process, judges consider legally valid evidence under Article 184 of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), including witness testimonies, documents, and expert statements. Additionally, they take into account mitigating or aggravating factors, such as efforts to recover state losses or the defendant’s track record. If found guilty, the defendant may face imprisonment, fines, or an obligation to compensate for state losses. In some cases, the defendant’s attempt to return state losses may serve as a mitigating factor, as regulated in Article 4, paragraph (2) of Perma No. 1 of 2020 on Sentencing Guidelines for Corruption Crimes. The verdict is final at the first- instance level but can be appealed by either the defendant or the public prosecutor to a higher court following the procedures established in KUHAP.

Moreover, compiling verdict data periodically can help analyze the characteristics of corruption crimes and sentencing patterns applied by the judges. For instance, by collecting and extracting verdict data on corruption cases

at PN Pontianak from 2020 to 2024, trends in corruption case handling after the enactment of Perma No. 1 of 2020 can be identified. This data can serve as an evaluation tool to assess the consistency of sentencing guidelines, disparities in punishments, and the effectiveness of state loss recovery efforts. According to Indonesian legal expert Prof. Romli Atmasasmita, consistency and transparency in corruption law enforcement are crucial to restoring public trust in the judicial system. Thus, analyzing these verdicts is not only beneficial for law enforcement but also for strengthening judicial accountability and integrity.

The data was obtained from http://10.11.12.13/sipp/main , organized into tabular form, and analyzed using a combined qualitative and quantitative approach to gain a comprehensive understanding of corruption crimes and the sentencing decisions made by judges in handling such cases. Numerical analysis of court verdict data on corruption cases after the enactment of Perma No. 1 of 2020 (from 2020 to October 2024) indicates significant trends. The total number of corruption cases at the Pontianak District Court reached 289, with 33 cases in 2020, 95 cases in 2021, 49 cases in 2022, 54 cases in 2023, and 58 cases as of October 2024. This fluctuation reflects the dynamics of corruption case handling and the effectiveness of Perma No. 1 of 2020 in law enforcement.

Most cases involved violations of Articles 2 and 3 of Law Number 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of Corruption Crimes, while a smaller proportion related to Articles 5 and 12. Corrupt practices during this period were estimated to have caused state losses of approximately IDR 373 billion, with the highest losses occurring in 2020 (IDR 105.965 billion) and the lowest in 2023 (IDR 36 billion). From a gender perspective, 95.16% of corruption perpetrators were male, while 4.84% were female. The following graphical analysis provides a more detailed overview of corruption trends, types of offenses, and financial losses to the state within the jurisdiction of PN Pontianak.

According to Law Number 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of Corruption Crimes, various types of corruption offenses are specifically regulated along with

the articles they violate. The following are the types of corruption offenses and their corresponding articles :

Of the nine types of corruption offenses mentioned above, data analysis of corruption cases at the Pontianak District Court indicates that the most dominant offense is causing financial or economic losses to the state, followed by bribery and gratification. This finding suggests that acts causing financial losses to the state (Article 2, Paragraph 1) and abuse of authority, opportunity, or facilities (Article 3) have been the most prevalent corruption practices in West Kalimantan over the past five years, with an increasing trend each year.

To better understand this phenomenon and the disparities that arise, it is necessary to analyze sentencing data from court rulings on corruption cases. Additionally, an in-depth analysis of court decisions should be conducted. Sentencing disparities refer to inconsistencies in judges’ rulings when imposing punishments on defendants convicted of similar offenses under Articles 2 and 3 of Law No. 31/1999. This analysis should also examine the standards judges use in their decisions—whether they align with sentencing guidelines or not. Furthermore, it is crucial to assess trends and correlations in rulings to determine whether certain cases tend to receive more lenient sentences, particularly those involving high-ranking officials or cases with significant financial losses to the state. This can be achieved by referencing judicial decision databases.

Based on an analysis of corruption verdicts referring to Articles 2 and 3 of Law No. 31/1999 in conjunction with Law No. 20/2001 on the Eradication of Corruption Crimes in the Pontianak District Court from 2020 to 2024, findings indicate a low correlation and significant disparity in sentencing. This disparity is reflected in the inconsistency of judges in sentencing defendants involved in corruption cases with similar characteristics. Statistical analysis reveals that the correlation between state financial losses and sentencing severity is minimal. The correlation coefficient between financial losses and imprisonment is only 0.022, while the correlation between financial losses and fines is 0.047. This suggests that financial losses are not a dominant factor in judicial considerations, leading to legal uncertainty and injustice in sentencing.

According to legal expert Romli Atmasasmita, sentencing disparities in corruption cases arise from varying judicial interpretations of the law and the absence of clear guidelines for determining appropriate punishments.

Furthermore, M. Yahya Harahap argues that inconsistencies in judicial decisions undermine legal certainty and fairness, which should be fundamental pillars of the justice system. These findings are consistent with previous research by Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW), which highlights that corruption sentencing disparities are often influenced by non-legal factors such as political intervention or external pressure.

The weak correlation between financial losses and sentencing severity, both in terms of imprisonment and fines, reflects inconsistencies in legal enforcement that can erode public trust in the judicial system. When the severity of punishment does not correspond to the magnitude of financial losses inflicted on the state, the public may perceive law enforcement as unfair and disproportionate. This situation risks creating legal uncertainty and the impression that the law favors perpetrators with economic or political power.

Therefore, reforms are needed in sentencing policy implementation, including strengthening more objective and transparent sentencing standards based on substantive justice principles. By ensuring that punishments are proportional to the impact of the crime, the legal system can be more effective in deterring corruption, enhancing judicial accountability, and restoring public confidence in the state’s commitment to eradicating corruption.

Table 4. Results of Trend Correlation Analysis of Judges’ Rulings in Corruption Cases Under Articles 2 & 3 of Law No. 31/1999 at the Pontianak District Court (2020–2024)

Perma No. 1 of 2020 on Sentencing Guidelines for Articles 2 and 3 of the Corruption Eradication Law serves as a legal instrument aimed at creating uniformity in corruption sentencing. This regulation was introduced in response to public criticism regarding sentencing disparities, which often do not align with the financial losses suffered by the state or the level of culpability of the offenders. However, despite the existence of clearer guidelines, the effectiveness of Perma No. 1 of 2020 in restoring public confidence in justice still faces several challenges. Certain measures must be taken to ensure that this regulation is optimally implemented and provides legal certainty that is fair and just.

By addressing these areas, future research can contribute to a more transparent, proportional, and credible legal system, ultimately strengthening public confidence and the rule of law in the fight against corruption.