The Authority of the Supreme Court to Change Criminal Sanctions in Judex Factie Judge's Decisions

The Supreme Court, functioning as a court of cassation, possesses authority constitutionally delineated in the 1945 Constitution and operationally governed by legislation, particularly Law Number 8 of 1981 pertaining to the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP). As Judex Juris, the Supreme Court is solely empowered to analyse the application of law by the Judex Factie court, not to reassess the factual circumstances of the case. Article 253 of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) delineates the specific reasons for a cassation claim, which include misapplication of the law, procedural flaws during the trial, or judicial overreach. In actuality, certain Supreme Court rulings, including cases Number 813 K/Pid/2023 and 816 K/Pid/2023, demonstrate that legal reasoning is not grounded in the stipulations of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), but instead relies on subjective moral judgements. This presents a legal dilemma as it may obscure the limits of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, jeopardise legal clarity, and alter the interpretation of justice that ought to be founded on relevant legal standards. The study employs the normative juridical research technique. This research aims to examine and elucidate the Supreme Court's authority to modify the severity of a sentence without regard to the rationale behind the cassation application. The research findings suggest that certain provisions can alter the Supreme Court's role from a judex juris to a judex factie, specifically when the Supreme Court overturns a lower court's decision and adjudicates the case directly, employing the evidentiary rules pertinent to the first-instance court. The cassation examination is confined to the legally permissible grounds as stipulated in Article 253 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP). Aside from these considerations, cassation appeals are denied as they are not legally permissible.