Disparity In Law Enforcement in the Application of Minimum Criminal Penalties to Perpetrators of Narcotics Crimes (Case Study in the Jurisdiction of Huluh Sungai Tengah Regency)

Abstract

This study aims to identify and analyze the main causes of the discrepancy between the minimum criminal charges imposed by the Public Prosecutor at the Hulu Sungai Tengah District Attorney's Office, which are guided by Law Number 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics and Regulation of the Attorney General of the Republic of Indonesia Number 24 of 2021 concerning Handling of General Criminal Cases, and the Supreme Court's cassation decision, which actually imposes a sentence below the minimum limit. This study also examines and analyzes the disparity between court decisions and the Narcotics Law, which affects the effectiveness of law enforcement against narcotics crimes at the Hulu Sungai Tengah District Attorney's Office. This study uses a qualitative approach with an empirical juridical method. Based on the research, it is concluded that the disparity between the minimum criminal charges imposed by the Public Prosecutor and the Supreme Court's cassation decision is mainly caused by differences in perspective: prosecutors are bound by normative obligations based on the Narcotics Law and Regulation 24/2021, while judges use their independence to emphasize substantive justice, legal facts, the defendant's condition, and humanitarian principles. These differing approaches create uncertainty in the application of narcotics laws and highlight the gap between the law on paper and the law in action. At the Hulu Sungai Tengah District Attorney's Office, the disparity between cassation decisions imposing sentences below the minimum limit and prosecutors' obligations to prosecute according to the minimum limit has implications for the effectiveness of law enforcement. The tension between legal certainty and substantive justice creates a lack of synchronization in the implementation of norms and has the potential to shift the strategic role of prosecutors as guardians of legal certainty. Therefore, affirmation of the application of minimum sentences is necessary to ensure consistency, certainty, and effectiveness in law enforcement that is just and oriented toward the public interest.