The Criminalization of Public Policy and the Governance Dilemma: Reconstructing the Legal Boundaries between Administrative Discretion and Abuse of Authority
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32492/JPP.V10i1.10106Keywords:
Criminalization, Public Policy, Discretion, Criminal Law, Law Enforcement AuthoritiesAbstract
The expanding use of criminal law in administrative governance has increasingly reshaped the relationship between public accountability and policy-making in Indonesia. Public officials frequently face criminal investigation for discretionary decisions made within their official authority, particularly when policy failures, procedural irregularities, or state financial losses arise after policy implementation. Consequently, the boundary between legitimate administrative discretion and criminal abuse of authority has become increasingly unclear, creating legal uncertainty and affecting governance effectiveness. This study examines how the criminalization of public policy influences administrative discretion and bureaucratic governance in Indonesia. Using a socio-legal and conceptual legal research approach, the study analyzes legislation, legal doctrines, judicial reasoning, governance theory, and scholarly literature concerning corruption, public administration, and state accountability. The findings reveal that outcome-oriented criminal liability increasingly shifts accountability from intent toward policy consequences. As a result, policy failure and procedural irregularity are frequently treated as indicators of criminal wrongdoing despite the absence of corrupt intent or personal benefit. Excessive criminalization also contributes to defensive bureaucratic behavior characterized by excessive procedural caution, declining policy innovation, delayed decision-making, and weakened administrative responsiveness. This study argues that accountability mechanisms must operate within proportionate legal boundaries. Accordingly, the article proposes a differentiated accountability framework in which criminal sanctions remain focused on intentional abuse of authority, while good-faith administrative errors and policy failures are addressed primarily through administrative supervision and governance correction mechanisms.
References
Ackerman, B. (2019). Revolutionary Constitutions: charismatic leadership and the rule of law. Harvard University Press.
Andrews, M., Pritchett, L., & Woolcock, M. (2017). Building state capability: Evidence, analysis, action. Oxford University Press.
Ansell, C., & Torfing, J. (2022). Handbook on theories of governance. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Artinger, F. M., Artinger, S., & Gigerenzer, G. (2019). CYA: frequency and causes of defensive decisions in public administration. Business Research, 12(1), 9–25. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s40685-018-0074-2
Artinger, F. M., Marx-Fleck, S., Junker, N. M., Gigerenzer, G., Artinger, S., & van Dick, R. (2025). Coping with uncertainty: The interaction of psychological safety and authentic leadership in their effects on defensive decision making. Journal of Business Research, 190, 115240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2025.115240
Atikah, I., Rizkia, N. D., Basri, B., Monteiro, J. M., Jaelani, E., & Silapurna, E. L. (2024).
Pengantar Metode Penelitian Hukum Sosio-Legal.
Audia, S. (2025). Makna penyalahgunaan kewenangan dalam perkara tindak pidana korupsi. Journal of Anti-Corruption, 36–51. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.33756/jlr.v2i2.5942
Busuioc, E. M., & Lodge, M. (2016). The reputational basis of public accountability. Governance, 29(2), 247–263. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12161Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Busuioc, M. (2021). Accountable artificial intelligence: Holding algorithms to account. Public Administration Review, 81(5), 825–836. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13293
Danil, E. (2020). Penerapan Prinsip Ultimum Remedium Terhadap Tindak Pidana Administrasi. Jurnal Hukum Pidana Dan Kriminologi, 1(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.51370/jhpk.v1i1.2
Dubber, M. D. (2018). The dual penal state: the crisis of criminal law in comparative-historical perspective. Oxford University Press.
Philipus M. Hadjon, Tatiek Sri Djatmiati, G.H. Addink, dan J. B. J. M. T. B. (2011). Hukum Administrasi dan Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Gadjah Mada University Press.
Pierre, J., & Peters, B. G. (2020). Governance, politics and the state. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Silitonga, D. (2022). Evaluasi Implementasi Kebijakan Publik (Vol. 1). Zahira Media Publisher.
Rose-Ackerman, S., & Palifka, B. J. (2016). Corruption and government: Causes, consequences, and reform. Cambridge university press.
Shepsle, K. A. (2019). Discretion, institutions, and the problem of government commitment. In Social theory for a changing society (pp. 245–265). Routledge.
Winarno, B. (2016). Kebijakan publik era globalisasi. Media Pressindo.
Gultom, T., Indarti, E., & Sa’adah, N. (2021). A Paradigmatic Study to Legally Assess the Authority and Right of Jurisdiction of Public Sector Governance: Examining Discretion in Government Administrative Law. International Journal of Criminology and Sociology, 10, 1129–1135. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.6000/1929-4409.2021.10.131
Gumbir, S. W., & Nurhayati, R. (2016). An Overview On The Abuse Of Power In The Perspective Of Corruption Law And Government Administration Law In Indonesia Based On The Criminal Justice System And The State Administration Of The Justice System. Yustisia, 5(3), 581–606. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.20961/yustisia.v5i3.8798
Haque, M. S. (2000). Significance of accountability under the new approach to public governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 66(4), 599–617. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852300664004
Hartanto, D., Dalle, J., Akrim, A., & Anisah, H. U. (2021). Perceived effectiveness of e-governance as an underlying mechanism between good governance and public trust: a case of Indonesia. Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance, 23(6), 598–616. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/DPRG-03-2021-0046
Herizal, H., Mukhrijal, M., & Wance, M. (2020). Pendekatan akuntabilitas pelayanan publik dalam mengikuti perubahan paradigma baru administrasi publik. Journal of Governance and Social Policy, 1(1), 24–34. https://doi.org/10.24815/gaspol.v1i1.17327
Hulu, S., & Pujiyono, P. (2018). Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Atas Tindakan Diskresi Pejabat Pemerintahan Yang Berindikasi Adanya Penyalahgunaan Wewenang. Masalah-Masalah Hukum, 47(2), 167–174. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.14710/mmh.47.2.2018.167-174
Jawa, D., Malau, P., & Ciptono, C. (2024). Tantangan dalam penegakan hukum tindak pidana korupsi di Indonesia. Jurnal Usm Law Review, 7(2), 1006–1017. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.26623/julr.v7i2.9507
Johnsen, Å. (2019). Public sector audit in contemporary society: A short review and introduction. Financial Accountability & Management, 35(2), 121–127. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12191
Kumalaningdyah, N. (2019). Pertentangan Antara Diskresi Kebijakan Dengan Penyalahgunaan Wewenang Dalam Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Jurnal Hukum Ius Quia Iustum, 26(3), 481–499.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.20885/iustum.vol26.iss3.art3
Kurniawan, T. (2022). Discretion as a factor in corruption: A case from Indonesia. Public Integrity, 24(7), 692–701. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/10999922.2021.1975939
Malik, A., & Nugroho, A. D. (2016). Menuju paradigma penelitian sosiologi yang integratif. Jurnal Sosiologi Reflektif, 10(2), 65–84. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.14421/jsr.v10i2.515
Manao, D. F. (2018). Penyelesaian Penyalahgunaan Wewenang Oleh Aparatur Pemerintah Dari Segi Hukum Administrasi Dihubungkan Dengan Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Jurnal Wawasan Yuridika, 2(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.25072/jwy.v2i1.158
Melander, S. (2017). Criminalization and its limitations: The Finnish Perspective. Peking University Law Journal, 5(1), 51–75. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/20517483.2017.1330809
Nalle, V. I. W. (2018). The Scope of Discretion in Government Administration Law: Constitutional or Unconstitutional? Hasanuddin Law Review, 1–14. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.20956/halrev.v4i1.1316
Peters, B. G. (2021). Governing in a time of global crises: the good, the bad, and the merely normal. Global Public Policy and Governance, 1(1), 4–19. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s43508-021-00006-x
Putra, M. A. A. (2021). Bentuk penyalahgunaan wewenang pejabat pemerintah yang tidak dapat dipidana. Justisi, 7(2), 118–136. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.33506/js.v7i2.1362
Putri, S. A., Triono, A., & Kasmawati, K. (2025). Diskresi pejabat administrasi dalam pelayanan publik terhadap batasan dan pengawasan diskresi. Lex Stricta: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 4(1), 33–42. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.46839/lexstricta.v4i1.1427
Romzek, B. S. (2000). Dynamics of public sector accountability in an era of reform. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 66(1), 21–44. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852300661004
Rubasundram, G. A., & Rasiah, R. (2019). Corruption and good governance. Journal of Southeast Asian Economies, 36(1), 57–70.
https://doi.org/https://www.jstor.org/stable/26664253
Schäfer, F.-S., Hirsch, B., & Nitzl, C. (2023). The effects of public service motivation, risk propensity and risk perception on defensive decision-making in public administrations. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 35(2), 244–263. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBAFM-04-2022-
Schinkel, M. P., Tóth, L., & Tuinstra, J. (2020). Discretionary authority and prioritizing in government agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 30(2), 240–256. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muz018
Simanjuntak, E. P. (2018). Pengujian Ada Tidaknya Penyalahgunaan Wewenang Menurut Undang-Undang Administrasi Pemerintahan/Examination To Determine The Presence Or Absence Of Abuse Of Authority According To Government Administration Law. Jurnal Hukum Dan Peradilan, 7(2), 237–262. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.25216/jhp.7.2.2018.237-262
Situmeang, T., Sectionardo, W. A., & Berutu, C. A. N. (2025). CRIMINALIZATION’A POLICY’“Juridical Review Based On Good Governance Aspects.” Veredas Do Direito, 22(3), e223405–e223405.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.18623/rvd.v22.n3.3405
Sjamsoeddin, S., Yusgiantoro, P., Saragih, H., & Soepandji, B. (2023). Transformational bureaucratic leadership model to support national defense policy in Indonesia. Jurnal Ilmu Sosial Dan Ilmu Politik, 26(3), 227–239. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.22146/jsp.70204
Suramin, S. (2021). Indonesian anti-corruption law enforcement: current problems and challenges. Journal of Law and Legal Reform, 2(2), 225–242. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.15294/jllr.v2i2.46612
Wheeler, S. (2020). Socio-legal studies in 2020. Journal of Law and Society, 47, S209–S226. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/jols.12267
Yan, Y., & Ramesh, M. (2026). Accountability for policy decisions: addressing gaps in theory and practice. Policy Sciences, 1–19. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-026-09601-3
Mohamed, S. (2021). Abuse by Authority: The Hidden Harm of Illegal Orders. Iowa L. Rev., 107, 2183.
Price, A., & Freund, D. (2017). On the legal effects of unlawful administrative action. South African Law Journal, 134(1), 184–208. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC-657f80038
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Haniyah Haniyah, Muhammad Irfan Hibatulloh Alquds
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
