Like a benevolent Santa Claus, President Prabowo Subianto has once again extended his generosity to those convicted of corruption. Most recently, exercising his constitutional authority, he granted rehabilitation to three former executives of state-owned ferry operator PT ASDP.
Before that, the public was likewise taken aback when he issued pardons to two of his political opponents, Tom Lembong and Hasto Kristiyanto. Perhaps for this magnanimity, Prabowo may soon be awarded a special hero’s title, a gesture that corrupt actors themselves would likely applaud. As the president of all Indonesians, he has every right to use this prerogative.
Perhaps the former Army’s Special Forces (Kopassus) general sensed foul play in a haphazard legal process. It is also possible that he heard the public’s growing frustration over the arbitrary enforcement of the law. Since the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) and the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) are viewed as failing to deliver genuine justice, he might believe he is justified in punishing them with the strongest blade of executive authority, which is the presidential prerogative. The politics of clemency is not new in any constitutional democracy.
Around the world, it is often used as a tool of political bargaining or as a quiet weapon to shield allies or silence opponents. Peru’s former president Pedro Kuczynski faced fierce criticism after pardoning Alberto Fujimori, a former president and high-profile corruption convict. Many viewed the move as a political deal to protect Kuczynski from impeachment. In Brazil, former president Michel Temer issued a decree that granted clemency to corruption convicts. More recently, Donald Trump’s series of politically charged pardons in the United States has benefited several of his close associates.
Because this instrument is used so frequently, Transparency International has observed that presidential clemency often becomes a pathway to impunity, especially for corruption offenders. Yet clemency should be reserved only for truly exceptional situations. This extraordinary relief should never function as a mechanism that appears to forgive corruption or allow its perpetrators to avoid meaningful punishment.
To many observers, Prabowo’s increasingly reckless use of pardons reflects a troubling pattern of presidential overreach. Executive powers that lack clear limits tend to weaken judicial independence, politicize law enforcement and create more space for impunity among political elites. These conditions deepen the imbalance among branches of government and weaken judicial oversight within the legal system. The immediate consequence of this corrective justification is a serious erosion of legal certainty. The essence of justice depends on the finality of court rulings. When a judge’s verdict can be undone through political discretion, the binding authority of judicial decisions collapses.
This concern is not hypothetical. Global studies have repeatedly warned of these risks. In October, Indonesia’s Rule of Law Index for 2025 fell significantly for the first time in many years. The World Justice Project, which produces the index, noted that executive dominance over legal processes in Indonesia has grown stronger. Key indicators such as constraints on government power, the independence of criminal courts and protection of fundamental rights have all weakened. These factors dragged Indonesia’s ranking down. Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index has sent similar warnings for years. Indonesia’s stagnant score shows how vulnerable our judicial processes remain to political interference. The country still sits in the bottom third of the world’s most corrupt nations. Indonesia is far behind countries with strong traditions of the rule of law, which rely on a solid shield of judicial independence.
If presidential overreach becomes normalized, law-enforcement officers may soon hesitate to act decisively in politically sensitive cases. They may begin calculating political consequences instead of upholding justice. Judges may grow reluctant to safeguard the integrity of their verdicts because they know their decisions can be overturned with ease. The KPK, which is already under scrutiny in the ASDP case, may become even more timid and limit itself to small-scale corruption cases.
If presidential clemency becomes a new normal, the public’s moral vigilance against corruption may continue to erode. The business sector will interpret these signals as well. Investors may increasingly make long-term decisions based on political access, patronage networks and informal lobbying rather than on fair competition and good governance. As impunity expands, it becomes difficult to imagine how Indonesia could escape the tightening grip of authoritarian tendencies. By the time the public realizes what has happened, it may already be too late. The rule-of-law state called Indonesia may have crumbled because presidential discretion was allowed to grow without supervision. Political interventions in legal matters would then feel ordinary and manipulation of the courts would become routine.
At this critical moment, President Prabowo must show restraint. The boundary between politics and law must be restored without exception. If political interests continue to spill into the legal arena, the core foundations of democracy will lose their footing. The presidential prerogative must be exercised only in a transparent and proportional manner and supported by strong democratic safeguards. Without these protections, this power can easily turn into a tool of impunity that undermines the legitimacy of law enforcement.
This article was published in thejakartapost.com with the title “”. Click to read: https://www.thejakartapost.com/opinion/2025/12/04/how-presidential-clemency-fuels-impunity.html.
Leave a Reply