HARMONIZATION OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS: ANALYSIS OF COMPLIANCE WITH JURISPRUDENCE AND APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY IN SPECIAL CRIMINAL CASES

Abstract

The Indonesian criminal law system places judges' decisions as the highest manifestation of the law enforcement process. Judges are organs that not only apply positive law mechanically but also must pay attention to jurisprudence, legal principles, and the public's sense of justice. In practice, differences in interpretation often arise between one decision and another in similar cases, especially in specific criminal cases such as corruption, narcotics, terrorism, money laundering, and serious human rights violations. The Judicial Power states, "Judges and constitutional judges are obliged to explore, follow, and understand the legal values ​​and sense of justice that exist in society." The purpose of this article is for judges' decisions to be in accordance with the law and the public's sense of justice. This provision relates to the principle of iura curia novit. The research method used in this study is library research, namely by reviewing and analyzing various legal literature, scientific journals, law books, and relevant Supreme Court decisions to identify and understand the role of jurisprudence in establishing legal certainty and consistency of decisions in Indonesia through a qualitative approach to data obtained from these sources. Court decisions play a central role in upholding law and justice. However, in practice, disparity in decisions often occurs, namely differences in legal decisions in similar cases. This phenomenon creates legal uncertainty and shakes public confidence in the justice system. Disparity in decisions occurs when judges in cases with nearly identical facts and laws decide differently, both in terms of the type and level of sanctions imposed. The principle of legality (lex praevia, lex scripta, lex certa, lex stricta) is the primary foundation of criminal law.