The granting of amnesty and abolition to former Minister of Trade Thomas Trikasih Lembong, or Tom Lembong, and PDIP Secretary General Hasto Kristiyanto has drawn public attention. Both are defendants in corruption and bribery cases that have received final and binding court decisions.
As is known, amnesty and abolition are presidential prerogatives to revoke or remove criminal penalties for certain offenses.
Amnesty is granted to individuals who have been legally found guilty, with their sentence subsequently removed.
Abolition, on the other hand, removes both the sentence and the guilt of the defendant.
UGM Law Lecturer Dr. Zainal Arifin Mochtar explained that amnesty and abolition are generally granted to reconcile political situations, while abolition is sometimes given for humanitarian reasons.
“Amnesty and abolition are political terms, not legal ones. Their use in Indonesia has developed in the context of political cases, often with a motive of reconciliation in the national interest,” he said on Friday, Aug. 8, 2025.
However, in the case of Tom Lembong, Dr. Mochtar sees no conditions that warrant such a reconciliation process.
Abolition should not be granted if the legal process has been carried out according to national legal standards.
The reasoning behind granting abolition in this case, he noted, remains highly questionable.
“This is clearly a political matter, but the question is: what exactly needs to be reconciled? Perhaps the president has tensions with certain parties, but it is wrong to measure that on a national scale,” he stressed.
He warned that if such practices continue, more policies could be driven by political motives rather than public interest.
Dr. Mochtar emphasized that there should be clear legal parameters for granting amnesty and abolition, whether based on national interest or political motives, and certain types of cases should be excluded.
In particular, political considerations should have no place in corruption cases.
Similarly, a researcher at UGM’s Center for Anti-Corruption Studies (PUKAT UGM), Zaenur Rohman, also raised concerns about the presidential authority to grant amnesty and abolition, which he said should be a special privilege.
According to him, Tom Lembong and Hasto Kristiyanto are not the only ones to have suffered from flaws in Indonesia’s law enforcement process.
Instead of issuing policy-based sentence removals in corruption cases, the government should acknowledge and correct existing legal deficiencies.
“Amnesty and abolition should be special, carrying the highest legal authority. Otherwise, what is the point of having a legal process and a judiciary? There are many ways to resolve legal issues,” Rohman said.
For Rohman, amnesty and abolition must have a clear basis for the benefit of the nation and humanity, not as political tools.
“Abuse of the president’s authority in this regard could undermine law enforcement in Indonesia,” he explained.
He further stated that these two cases are not exceptional.
Many previous cases have seen defendants become victims of political maneuvering and legal flaws.
Therefore, he urged the government to provide transparency to the public on the legal mechanisms at play.
“If there has indeed been a procedural error, it should be acknowledged and corrected,” he concluded.
Author: Tasya
Editor: Gusti Grehenson
Post-editor: Lintang Andwyna
Illustration: ti.or.id