Enforcement of Satisfaction Decisions in the Jambi Corruption Court: Normative Analysis through the Lens of Islamic Criminal Law

Abstract

Indonesia’s constitutional commitment to the rule of law requires every exercise of public authority to be lawful, equal, and accountable; however, persistent gratification offenses convert public office into a private commodity and thereby erode institutional legitimacy. This study analyzes the enforcement of gratification judgments at the Jambi Corruption Court, examines the ratio decidendi underlying judicial sanctions, and evaluates that process through Islamic criminal law (fiqh jinayah) in order to construct an integrative model of justice. Employing a normative-empirical qualitative design, three final and binding judgments were examined through doctrinal content analysis aligned with maqasid-based Islamic legal theory. The findings show that, although the judgments satisfy formal legality and evidentiary sufficiency, their execution reveals a persistent gap between law in the verdict and law in implementation, while judicial reasoning remains formalistic, distinguishing offenders by institutional visibility rather than by an explicit doctrine of proportional culpability rooted in the breach of amanah. Viewed through risywah, ghulul, hadiyyat al-‘ummal, and jarimah ta’zir, gratification constitutes a multidimensional violation of public trust. The study concludes by proposing an integrative model that synthesizes legal, moral, and public justice, and recommends that judges explicitly incorporate breach of trust as an aggravating factor, while enforcement authorities apply monitored and transparent restitution mechanisms.