SIGn Jurnal Hukum

Village Fund Pathology and Supervisory Dysfunction: A Legal Analysis in Boalemo Regency

Sri Rahayu Lestari Pade — 2025-10-01

Indonesia’s Village Fund policy faces a serious challenge in the form of systematic financial misuse, which is exacerbated by a weak internal oversight mechanism. This research aims to analyze the modus operandi of Village Fund misuse and the institutional dysfunction of the Inspectorate in performing its supervisory functions in Boaloemo Regency. Using an empirical juridical approach and a qualitative study design, primary data were collected through in-depth interviews, observation, and questionnaires, supported by secondary data from a document analysis. The results indicate a governance pathology at the village level, manifested through authoritative deviation, financial manipulation, and administrative engineering. This condition is triggered by a lack of participation and transparency. Furthermore, the study finds that this pathology is directly caused by the dysfunction of the Inspectorate, which suffers from structural constraints including resource deficits (budget and auditors), geographical challenges, an excessive workload, and a lack of sanctioning authority that blunts the deterrence effect. It is concluded that a strong causal relationship exists, wherein the failure of the internal oversight function is the determining factor that creates a permissive environment for widespread misappropriation. Therefore, three strategic policies are recommended: the institutional capacity building of the Inspectorate, the revitalization of participatory oversight mechanisms at the village level, and the enhancement of competency standards for village apparatus human resources.

The Paradox of Implementing Restorative Justice at the Investigation Stage: A Systematic Weakening of Sentence Enhancement for Repeat Offenders

Yufiyandini Adiningsih — 2025-10-01

The progressive adoption of restorative justice at the investigation stage has created the unintended consequence of systematically weakening law enforcement against repeat offenders. This study aims to analyze how the normative framework of restorative justice, particularly Police Regulation Number 8 of 2021, and its field implementation create a juridical gap that directly neutralizes the sentence enhancement mechanism. Employing juridical-normative and juridical-empirical approaches, this study confronts the ideal legal text (das sollen) with the practical reality (das sein) at the Criminal Investigation Unit of the Sumedang Regency Police. Key findings indicate that the regulation’s definition of recidivism, which is exclusively tied to a “court judgment,” renders restorative settlement records—which are purely administrative in nature—devoid of juridical evidentiary force. Consequently, offenders who repeatedly utilize the restorative path will always be considered first-time offenders. This condition opens a dangerous loophole for impunity and the weakening of the deterrent effect. This study concludes that without a policy reconstruction that grants limited legal status to restorative records and integrates them into a unified criminal justice data system, the noble goal of restorative justice risks sacrificing the principles of legal certainty and public protection. Therefore, urgent regulatory reform is necessary to synchronize the objective of restoration with the imperative of effective law enforcement against repeat offenders.

Judicial Law-Finding in the Criminal Justice System: Harmonizing Legal Certainty and Substantive Justice

Muhammad Irwan — 2025-10-01

The enactment of Law Number 1 of 2023 marks a fundamental paradigm shift in the Indonesian criminal justice system, prioritizing substantive justice over formal legal certainty. This shift radically transforms the role of a Judge from a mere mouthpiece of the law (bouche de la loi) to an active law-finder (rechtsvinder). However, the practice of law-finding in the field remains largely ad hoc and intuitive, creating a risk of inconsistency. Addressing this urgency, this research aims to formulate a systematic and accountable ideal concept of judicial law-finding to serve as an operational guide for Judges. Using a normative juridical method that integrates a statute approach, a conceptual approach, and a case approach to key court decisions, this study conducts a methodological reconstruction of the practice of judicial discretion. The primary finding is the formulation of a “judicial compass” built upon five mutually reinforcing fundamental principles: (1) proportionality, (2) transparency and accountability, (3) judicial consistency, (4) social responsiveness, and (5) dynamic equilibrium. These five principles collectively transform the law-finding process into a structured and rational approach. Thus, this ideal concept contributes both theoretically and practically by offering a coherent framework for Judges to execute the mandate of Law Number 1 of 2023, enabling them to harmonize legal values justly and measurably in every decision.