Riana Susmayanti, Fitri Hidayat
This article departs from Supreme Court Decision No. 46 P/HUM/2018 and Constitutional Court Decision No. 87/PUU-XX/2022, both of which permit former corruption convicts to stand as parliamentary candidates. These rulings raise serious doubts about the state’s commitment to combating corruption, as they undermine citizens’ rights to elect representatives who are genuinely clean and free from corruption, collusion, and nepotism. The research gap lies in the sparked scholarly debate, as reflected in studies by Vantri (2019), Zamzami and Ayu (2019), and Susmayanti and Zain (2021). This study’s comprehensive analysis that integrates human rights law, Islamic legal principles, and international ratifications to examine: (1) the human rights perspective of former corruption convicts regarding their eligibility to run for parliament, and (2) the human rights perspective of other citizens who demand integrity in representation. Employing a normative juridical methodology with statute and case approaches, the study analyses constitutional provisions, statutory law, Islamic jurisprudence (Maqāṣid al-Sharī‘ah), and international instruments such as the ICCPR and UNCAC. The key finding is that the seriousness of the state’s anti-corruption agenda requires the revocation of political rights for former corruption convicts, framed as an additional criminal sanction. Both national and international legal frameworks provide sufficient basis for such restrictions. The implications for legal science are significant, as the study bridges constitutional, criminal, Islamic, and international law. For foreign readers, it offers comparative insights into how emerging democracies grapple with balancing human rights protection and democratic integrity in the fight against corruption. © 2025 Brawijaya Law Journal.
Faculty of Law, Universitas Brawijaya, Indonesia
