Dissecting Abolition and Amnesty: Definitions, Differences, and Legal Consequences

Legal Literacy - In legal and political news in Indonesia, the term abolition and amnesty often appear together. Both are the prerogative of the President, who has great power to intervene in the judicial process. However, many parties are still confused: what exactly are abolition and amnesty, where are the differences, and—most importantly—does accepting it mean someone automatically admits guilt? This article dissects it concisely but comprehensively.

What is Abolition?

Abolition is the elimination or termination of the prosecution process against someone before the case obtains a court decision that is inkracht van gewijsde. In other words, the President decides to stop the ongoing investigation or prosecution.

• Focus: to halt the process (subject of the case).
• Time of Granting: while legal proceedings are ongoing, before a final and binding decision.
• Legal Consequence: the case is closed; the status of suspect/defendant is nullified.
• Constitutional Basis: Article 14 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution — “The President grants amnesty and abolition with due regard to the considerations of the House of Representatives.”

Because there is no verdict yet, the presumption of innocence remains with the recipient of the abolition.

What is Amnesty?

Amnesty is a general pardon that eliminates all consequences criminal law of an act. The State—through the President—chooses to “forget” the crime for a broader purpose, such as political reconciliation.

• Focus: to eliminate the legal consequences of their actions.
• Time of Granting: before, during, or after a court decision, including after the decision is legally binding.
• Legal Consequence: the verdict is nullified; criminal records are expunged; criminal execution is cancelled. The decision remains, but can no longer be executed.
• Constitutional Basis: Article 14 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, with consideration from the DPR (House of Representatives).

Amnesty is commonly granted for politically motivated crimes—for example, amnesty for political prisoners of DI/TII, the Aceh movement, or to quell social unrest for the sake of national reconciliation.

Main Differences

Aspect	Abolition	Amnesty
Definition	Termination of the prosecution process.	Pardon/removal of legal consequences.
Object	Subject (the person).	The criminal act.
Time	Only before a final and binding decision.	Can be at any time, even post-conviction.
Effect	The case is not continued; the status of suspect/defendant is lost.	All criminal consequences disappear; execution is canceled.
Nature	Specific, case by case.	General, often for groups and broader political purposes.

Are Recipients Considered to Admit Guilt?

No. Neither abolition nor amnesty does not requires an admission of guilt from the recipient.

Abolition

Because the process is halted before a verdict, the court never rules "guilty" or "not guilty." The recipient remains under the presumption of innocence.

Amnesty

Amnesty is ex nunc—removing legal consequences from the moment the decision is enacted—and does not require individual admission. The state assesses that there is a greater interest (peace, stability) so it chooses to eliminate criminal enforcement.

Note: The civil rights of victims can still be claimed if regulated by other laws; amnesty only eliminates criminal consequences.

Conclusion

• Abolition halts the law enforcement process against a person before a final verdict.
• Amnesty removes all criminal consequences of an act, both before and after the verdict.
• Accepting both is not equivalent to an admission of guilt. Abolition stops before proof, while amnesty is a pardon that stands alone.

By understanding these differences, the public can see the President's policy more clearly—that such constitutional intervention is not a moral verdict on the recipient, but rather a political-legal instrument for the broader interests of the state.